Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court has directed the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, to grant permission to an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to travel abroad for employment, subject to conditions. The court recorded that the case had been pending since 2019 and, as per the trial court’s report, it would take at least two more years for disposal. It stated that denying the petitioner an opportunity to seek employment abroad under these circumstances would be unjust.

The court examined the submissions made by both parties and noted that the Sessions Judge had rejected the petitioner’s request to travel abroad by drawing a parallel to the cases of Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi. The High Court recorded that such a comparison was unwarranted in the given circumstances. The order enables the petitioner to take up employment abroad while ensuring legal representation in his ongoing trial.

The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 658 of 2018, registered at Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur, under Sections 22(b) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case is currently pending as Sessions Case No. 121 of 2019 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and others were found in possession of a narcotic substance, leading to charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The petitioner was granted bail on March 6, 2019, through an order issued by the District Sessions Court, Thrissur.

In August 2024, the petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking permission to travel abroad for employment and requested that he be allowed to appear through his counsel during his absence. This request was rejected by the trial court on August 17, 2024, on the grounds that the petitioner might evade trial if permitted to leave the country.

The petitioner then approached the Kerala High Court, challenging the rejection order. His counsel submitted that he was only 18 years old at the time of the alleged offense and had since turned 24 years old. It was argued that preventing him from taking up employment abroad indefinitely was unjustified, particularly in light of the delay in case proceedings.

The petitioner further contended that the delay in trial was due to judicial backlog and not due to any attempt on his part to prolong proceedings. His counsel submitted that he was willing to comply with all conditions imposed by the court, including appointing a legal representative for hearings in his absence.

The Kerala High Court sought a status report from the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the progress of the case and the estimated time required for disposal. The trial court reported that:

• More than 1,000 cases older than five years were pending before it.

• The total pendency of the court exceeded 4,000 cases.

• In compliance with High Court directives, priority was being given to disposing of older cases, leading to delays in framing charges in the petitioner’s case.

• The trial court estimated that it would take at least two more years to conclude the case.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, arguing that the offense was serious and that allowing the petitioner to travel abroad might lead to absconding.

The High Court, after considering the submissions, recorded: “If two years are required to dispose of the case, it will be unjust to deny the petitioner an opportunity to eke his living by working abroad.”

The court also observed that the trial court had referred to the cases of Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi while rejecting the petitioner’s request, which it found to be “unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The court stated that the petitioner had complied with all bail conditions and had not misused his liberty. It also noted that the petitioner had expressed willingness to return for trial proceedings if required. The High Court noted that the comparison of the petitioner’s case with individuals who had fled the country to evade prosecution was not justified.

The court observed that in cases of judicial delay, an accused cannot be indefinitely restricted from pursuing legitimate employment opportunities. It recorded that while the allegations against the petitioner were under trial, procedural delays in the judicial system should not prevent him from earning a livelihood.

The Kerala High Court disposed the case with the following directions:

• The Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thrissur, shall grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad for employment.

• The petitioner must be represented by a counsel during his absence.

• The trial court may impose additional conditions as deemed appropriate.

Case Title: Sooryanarayanan v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.MC No. 8982 of 2024
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun

[Read/Download order]