The court recognizes the right of accused employed abroad to appear via video conferencing during ongoing investigations.

ORDER

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.785/2025 registered by the Vengara Police Station, Malappuram, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 288 , 110 and 118(1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that;

On 13.12.2025, at around 21:00 hours, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, while celebrating the victory of an independent candidate in the local Panchayath elections, burst fire crackers and threw them into the house of the defacto complainant, whose mother sustained injury to her left hand. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, although he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.12.2025, by Annexure 2 order, the Court of Sessions Manjeri (Bail Court) had enlarged him on bail, but subject to conditions. By Condition Nos.2 and 5, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 8:00 A.M and 9:00 A.M for two months or till the completion of the investigation and also surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Even though the order was passed on 22.12.2025, the investigation has not been completed. Hence, the petitioner has filed an application before the Bail Court to modify the Condition Nos. 2 and 5. However, by the impugned Annexure 3 order, the Bail Court has dismissed the application. Annexure 3 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. The petitioner is employed in Saudi Arabia as a driver. If the petitioner does not rejoin his duty, he will lose his employment, which in turn would cause severe financial hardships and difficulties to him. Hence, Annexure 3 order may be set aside.

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

5. Annexure 2 order was passed by the Bail Court on 22.12.2025. By Condition Nos.2 and 5, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday for a period of two months or till the completion of the investigation, and to surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Court.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been scrupulously appearing before the Investigating Officer on every Monday since 22.12.2025, which is more than a month now. It is reported that the investigation is still in progress.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has diligently appeared before the Investigating Officer for more than a month now, I am of the view that Condition No.2 is to be modified and the petitioner be permitted to appear before the Investigating Officer online, in case his further questioning is required.

8. In Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1650], this Court has succinctly held that the accused persons who are employed abroad, can be permitted to appear through video conferencing as per the provisions of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021. The above view has been reiterated by this Court in Rameshan v. State of Kerala (2025 (6) KHC

545).

9. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case, particularly that the petitioner is employed abroad and that he has to resume his employment immediately, I am of the definite view that the petitioner can be permitted to travel abroad, subject to the condition that he files applications before the jurisdictional Court seeking permanent exemption and to permit him to appear before the Investigating Officer and for trial by adopting the electronic video linkage, which will meet the interest of justice.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C, is allowe