The Kerala High Court criticized a sessions court for comparing an NDPS case accused to fugitives Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi. The court stated that denying travel permission based on an unfounded assumption of absconding was inappropriate. It emphasized that such reasoning lacked legal justification. This ruling reinforces the importance of fair judicial decisions.
The Kerala High Court set-aside a decision by a sessions court that had denied permission for a narcotics case accused to travel abroad for work.
Justice V.G. Arun criticized the sessions judge for making an inappropriate comparison between the petitioner and notorious criminals like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi, who have evaded justice by fleeing the country.
The High Court stated,
“Citing the examples of individuals like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi to deny the petitioner the opportunity to go abroad for employment was unwarranted.”
The judge deemed such reasoning unjustified given the specifics of the case.
Also Read: “Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi Fled India Due to Delayed Arrests”: Mumbai Court
The petitioner, Sooryanarayanan, is the fourth accused in a case filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), currently pending before the Additional Sessions Court-III in Thrissur. He had been granted bail by the District Sessions Court in Thrissur on March 6, 2019.
Subsequently, Sooryanarayanan sought permission to leave the country for work and to be represented by counsel. However, the sessions court denied his request, drawing parallels to international fugitives who have managed to evade law enforcement.
The sessions judge had stated,
“If the petitioner remains absconding in a foreign country, it is very difficult for the court or law enforcement to bring him back. We cannot even bring back Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya, who have committed financial frauds and are living abroad. Then who would bother to bring back the petitioner if he does not return?”
Dissatisfied with this ruling, Sooryanarayanan took his case to the High Court. His counsel contended that he was only 18 years old at the time of the alleged offense and is now 24. Denying him the chance to work abroad due to fears of him absconding was unreasonable, they argued.
While the public prosecutor opposed the plea, citing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of flight, the High Court sought a status report on the case. The sessions judge revealed that he had over 4,000 pending cases, with about 1,000 cases older than five years.
The High Court observed that due to the prioritization of older cases, Sooryanarayanan’s trial had not advanced, estimating that at least two more years would be needed for resolution.
Also Read: Mumbai Court: Nirav Modi’s London Property Sale Proceeds to Indian Government
The Court concluded that preventing the petitioner from seeking employment abroad based on concerns of absconding was unfair.
The order stated,
“This Court opines that if two years are required to dispose of the case, it would be unjust to deny the petitioner the opportunity to earn a living abroad,”
Consequently, the High Court directed the sessions judge to allow the petitioner to travel abroad, provided he is represented by counsel in his absence and complies with any additional conditions set by the court.
The petitioner was represented by a team of advocates, while Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M.K. appeared for the State.
Case Title: Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala & anr
Read Attachment