IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J.
Anju, D/O Velayudhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor
CRL.MC NO. 11202 OF 2025
Decided on : 20-01-2026
ORDER :
C.S. DIAS, J.
1. The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.568 of 2024 registered by the Ernakulam Town South Police Station against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had received Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on the assurance of securing a job. However, the accused failed to secure the job and refused to return the money.
3. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that she is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against her. There is no material to substantiate her culpability in the crime. The petitioner is employed in the United Arab Emirates. She has to rejoin her employment immediately, otherwise she would lose the same. By Annexure-2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 31.10.2025 by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam ('Trial Court', in short). By condition Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner was directed to surrender her passport and not to leave the State of Kerala. Since the petitioner has to join her employment, she filed an application to release the passport and also to permit her to travel abroad. However, by Annexure-3 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application was dismissed. Annexure-3 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. The petitioner has co-operated with the investigation. She is willing to appear before the Trial Court as and when directed and to avail the electronic video linkage facility as per the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ('Rules', in short). Therefore, Annexure-3 order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to travel abroad.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. By Annexure-2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 31.10.2025. It is not disputed that the petitioner has scrupulously complied with the conditions in the bail order by cooperating with the investigation. Indisputably, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been filed. However, in view of conditions No.3 and 4, the petitioner was obliged to surrender her passport and also not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Trial Court. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking to modify condition Nos.3 and 4 in Annexure-2 order. However, by the impugned Annexure-3 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application for identical relief has been dismissed.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that Annexure-2 order was passed on 31.10.2025 and that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, and further that there is no likelihood of the investigation being completed in the near future and the trial in the case commencing, I am of the definite view that the petitioner shall be permitted to travel abroad, subject to the condition that she files applications before the Trial Court seeking permanent exemption and also to avail the electronic video linkage facility as per the Rules.
7. In Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1650] , this Court has permitted the accused persons to appear through the electronic video linkage as per the provisions of the Rules. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Rameshan v. State of Kerala (2025 (6) KHC 545) .
8. In light of the above exposition of law and the fact that the petitioner has scrupulously complied with the conditions in the bail order, and further that the investigation is not complete and the trial in the case has not even commenced, I am of the definite view that the petitioner should be permitted to travel abroad, subject to the conditions that she seeks for pe
The court's ruling allows travel abroad for an accused under certain conditions while ensuring compliance with ongoing legal proceedings.
The court recognized the right to travel while balancing trial participation requirements, permitting an accused to travel abroad under specified conditions.
The court can modify bail conditions based on case status and employment opportunities while ensuring the accused's presence for trial.
The obligation of the state to ensure that restrictive conditions on travel are not imposed arbitrarily if they conflict with fundamental rights.
The court supports business travel based on compliance with legal conditions and prior permissions.
Bail modifications may be granted considering the urgency and new circumstances surrounding employment abroad.
The court recognizes the right of accused employed abroad to appear via video conferencing during ongoing investigations.
The court determined that the completion of investigation allowed the accused to travel abroad with stipulated conditions, emphasizing legal adherence and safeguards.
The court reinforced that bail conditions for foreign nationals accused of serious crimes must prioritize the integrity of the judicial process and the risk of flight.
Permanent exemption from appearance can be granted to an accused if reasonable conditions are imposed and prior permissions are adhered to.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.