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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
MUSTHAKEEM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1161 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Parties must adhere to procedural requirements when seeking modifications to bail conditions.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the petition under the CRL.MC for modification of bail conditions imposed by the Trial Court. It summarizes the petitioner's request to delete passport surrender conditions for employment travel. The Court finds that the petitioner should seek modification from the Trial Court directly, emphasizing procedural compliance as per the applicable rules.

Table of Content
1. background of accusations and bail request. (Para 2)
2. court's consideration of legal representations. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's directive for procedural compliance. (Para 5)
4. order disposition and instructions for trial court. (Para 6)

ORDER

The petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No. 188/2018 registered by the Crime Branch, Malappuram.

2. By Annexure A1(a) order, the petitioner was enlarged on statutory bail by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri (‘Trial Court’, for brevity), subject to conditions. As per condition No. (4), the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport within three days from the date of his release. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioner surrendered his passport before the Trial Court. Although the passport was surrendered in September 2022, the investigation in the case has not been completed, and the final report has not been filed. The petitioner proposes to travel abroad for the purpose of employment. Therefore, Condition No. (4) in the bail order may be deleted. Hence, the petition.

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

4. Indisputably, Annexure A1(a) order is passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to surrender his passport within three days of the date of his release. The petitioner has not moved the Trial Court for modification/deletion of the said condition. Instead, the petitioner has directly approached this Court on the assertion that he has subsequently approached this Court for modification of other conditions in the bail order.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not sought for modification/deletion of Condition No. (4) in Annexure A1(a) order, I am of the view that the petitioner has to move the Trial Court seeking for modification of Condition No. (4) in the bail order instead of rushing into this Court.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I dispose of the Crl.M.C. by permitting the petitioner to move the Trial Court seeking modification/deletion of Condition No.(4). If such an application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose the same, in accordance with the law. Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

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