SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
VAISHAKH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 866 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SMT.ABHIRAMI S., SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
For the Respondents: SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-SMT.PREETHA K.K.

Modification of bail conditions justified due to compliance and completion of investigation.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks modification of bail condition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after complying with all conditions for nearly a year. The investigation is nearly complete and the petitioner requires his passport for employment abroad. The court acknowledges this compliance and the status of the investigation. It allows the petition, directing the jurisdictional magistrate to return the passport upon provision of an undertaking.

Result: "Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is allowed, by deleting Condition No. (iv)..."

Table of Content
1. modification of bail conditions due to employment need. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. compliance indicates basis for altering bail conditions. (Para 4 , 5)

O R D E R

The petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, to delete/modify condition No. (iv) in Annexure A1 order passed by this Court.

2. By Annexure A1 order dated 26.07.2024, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by imposing eight conditions. By condition No. (iv), the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Court within ten days. The petitioner was also permitted to move the jurisdictional court seeking deletion/modification of any of the bail conditions. 3. The petitioner asserts that, he is scrupulously complying with the conditions in the bail order. Even though the petitioner had submitted an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate to release the passport, the same was dismissed by Annexure A3 order.

The investigation in the case is practically complete, and the petitioner’s further presence is not required. The petitioner has to resume his employment abroad. Therefore, the petitioner requires his passport. The petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, condition No. (iv)

may be deleted/modified. Hence, the petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Government Pleader has filed a memo with the report of the Investigating Officer dated 12.02.2025. In the said report, it is stated that the investigation is at its fag end.

5. On a consideration of the facts and the materials placed on record, especially that the petitioner has scrupulously complied with all the conditions in the order dated 26.07.2024, which is almost a year now, and the investigation in the case is practically complete, I am satisfied that the petition is to be allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top