Kerala High Court criticises sessions court for comparing NDPS accused to Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi

The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of the sessions court which had denied permission to a narcotics case accused to travel abroad for work [Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala & anr].Justice VG Arun criticised the sessions judge for drawing an incorrect comparison between the petitioner and the high-profile fugitives like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi who fled the country and have continued to remain absconding."Citing the examples of individuals like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi, in order to deny opportunity for the petitioner to go abroad for employment, was unwarranted," the High Court said.Such reasoning was unjustified based on the facts of the present case, the judge added..The petitioner, Sooryanarayanan, is the fourth accused in a crime registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and a case is currently pending against him before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur (sessions court).He was granted bail by the District Sessions Court Thrissur on March 6, 2019.Later, he filed a petition requesting permission to leave the country for work and to appear through a counsel.However, the sessions court denied his request, citing examples of international fugitives who have remained absconding in foreign countries."If the petitioner remains absconding in a foreign country, it is very difficult for the court/law enforcing authority to bring him back to this country to face trial. We cannot even bring back Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya, who have committed financial frauds of several thousand crores and are enjoying their life in a foreign country. Then who bothers to bring back the petitioner if he does not return?" the sessions judge stated while rejecting the plea.Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court..The petitioner's counsel argued that the accused was only 18 years old at the time of the alleged offence. He is 24 now and denying him the opportunity to take up employment abroad due to the fear of him absconding was unreasonable, it was argued.However, the public prosecutor opposed the plea citing the seriousness of the offence and the risk of absconding..The Court then sought a report on the petitioner's case status and the sessions judge informed that over 4,000 cases pending before him of which at least 1,000 were more than five years old.The High Court noted that due to prioritisation of older cases, the petitioner's trial had not progressed, and at least two more years would be needed for his case to be disposed of. Preventing the petitioner from seeking employment abroad solely due to concerns about absconding was unfair, the Court said."This Court is of the opinion that, if two years are required to dispose the case, it will be unjust to deny the petitioner an opportunity to eke his living by working abroad," the order said..Hence, it directed the sessions judge to permit the petitioner to travel abroad provided he is represented by counsel in his absence and that he would comply with any additional conditions imposed by the sessions court..The petitioner was represented by advocates Manumon A, Rebin Vincent Gralan, Suresh C, Santhosh TP, Ria Varghese, Rosna M Joy and Angel Mary KP.Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha MK appeared for the State..[Read Order]