Some Witnesses Living Abroad : Permission to travel abroad while on bail can be denied
Kerala High Court Upholds Bail Conditions: Denies Foreign Travel for Accused in Movie Investment Fraud. Petitioners barred from attending Dubai award ceremony due to concerns over witness influence and evidence tampering.
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the decision of a jurisdictional Magistrate denying permission for Shawn Anthony and others, accused in a high-profile investment fraud case, to travel to Dubai. The petitioners had sought modification of their bail conditions to attend the prestigious South Indian International Movie Awards (SIIMA) ceremony, where their film 'Manjummal Boys' was nominated for the Best Movie Award. However, the court found potential risks in allowing such travel, citing ongoing investigations and the possibility of influencing witnesses residing overseas.
The case centers around allegations that the petitioners induced the complainant to invest Rs.7 crores in the movie production with promises of significant profits. However, the complainant alleges losses amounting to Rs.47 crores due to unfulfilled promises. Consequently, charges under Sections 120B, 406, 420, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been registered against the accused.
Previously, the Kerala High Court had granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioners under strict conditions, including the stipulation that they must not leave India without court permission. This restriction became the focal point of the petitioners' plea for modification, arguing that the event is a crucial opportunity for international recognition of their work.
Advocate Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, representing the petitioners, argued that the denial hindered their participation in a significant cultural event and contested the Magistrate's findings regarding the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation. He emphasized the fundamental right to travel abroad, as supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, highlighting its importance in fostering individual creativity and independence.
The prosecution, represented by Advocate M.C. Ashi, opposed the modification, expressing concerns over the potential influence on witnesses residing abroad and the alleged stashing of funds in the UAE. The de facto complainant's counsel, Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, further asserted the risk of the accused conspiring with overseas distributors to derail the investigation and conceal financial assets.
Ultimately, Justice V.G. Arun dismissed the petition, noting that the basis for modification had lapsed as the award dates had already passed. He found that the Magistrate had appropriately considered all factors, including the presence of key witnesses overseas and allegations of financial misconduct, justifying the denial of travel permissions to ensure the integrity of the investigation.
The judgment underscores the balance between personal liberties and the necessity of protecting the judicial process, especially in cases involving complex financial fraud with international dimensions.
Bottom Line:
Petitioners sought permission to travel to Dubai for attending an award ceremony for their movie - Request denied by jurisdictional Magistrate and upheld by High Court due to concerns about influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence in an ongoing investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482; Indian Penal Code Sections 120B, 406, 420, 468
Shawn Anthony v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2787970
