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) 56570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
ADARSH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10302 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
For the Respondents: SR PP SMT SEETHA S

Court emphasizes the need for reviewing bail conditions due to changing circumstances, allowing petitioners to seek modifications.

Headnote:In this decision, the Court allows the petitioner, who is the accused and currently under bail conditions, the opportunity to petition for modification of the condition that restricts him from traveling abroad for employment opportunities. This is based on the significant time elapsed since the initial bail order and the changing circumstances that necessitate a review of the imposed conditions. The Court emphasizes that the Trial Court should have the discretion to decide on such modification applications expediently as per the law. Ultimately, the petitioner is permitted to file a new application to modify the condition, which the Trial Court must consider promptly.

Table of Content
1. accused is allowed to petition for modification of bail conditions. (Para 1)
2. employment opportunities for the petitioner necessitate review. (Para 2 , 3)
3. trial court to decide on modifications expeditiously. (Para 4)

O R D E R Dated this the 25th day of November 2025 The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.706/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra (Trial Court) which has arisen from Crime No.651/2021 registered by the Atholy Police Station, Kozhikode.

2. By Annexure A1 order dated 06.10.2022, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail, but subject to the condition that he should surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner surrendered his passport before the Trial Court. Subsequently, as the petitioner had to travel abroad, he filed CMP No.5292/2022, to return his passport. However, by Annexure A3 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that this Court has not permitted the Trial Court to modify the conditions in Annexure A1 order. The petitioner has got several opportunities to go abroad for the purpose of employment. Due to the condition No. (v), the petitioner is unable to take up any employment abroad. Hence, the condition may be modified.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, especially that Annexure A1 order was passed as early as on 6.10.2022, and three years have lapsed since the petitioner was enlarged on bail, I am of the definite view that the Trial Court should be empowered to decide whether the condition No. (v) in Annexure A1 order is to be modified or not.

Consequently, I dispose of the Crl. M.C. by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh application for modification of condition No.(v) in Annexure A1 order. If such application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the application, as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with the law, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner was enlarged on bail as early as on

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