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) 12828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
JITHIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1655 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN, K.U VYKHARI
For the Respondents: SMT. BINDU.O.V

Court can modify bail conditions considering the petitioner's employment and cooperation with the trial.

Headnote:This judgment concerns the petitioner's Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., challenging the Magistrate's order to return to India post-renewal of his passport due to alleged violations of bail conditions. The court noted the alleged offences arising from a family dispute and the petitioner's employment status abroad. It set aside certain conditions from the Magistrate's order, allowing the passport to be renewed for two years. The court stated, "The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly."

Table of Content
1. criteria for modifying bail conditions based on circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. importance of employment and cooperation in court proceedings. (Para 4)

ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of February, 2026 The 3rd accused in C.C. No. 1372 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Nedumangad, arising out of Crime No. 331 of 2024 of Aryanad police station, has filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. , being aggrieved by Annexure A4 order passed by the learned Magistrate directing him to return to India and to appear before the learned Magistrate after renewing his passport, for the purpose of hearing C.M.P No. 4693 of 2025. The petitioner also seeks permission to renew his passport for a period of two years instead of the three months granted by the learned Magistrate.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor would argue that, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner there was a direction not to leave India without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner violated the above condition and left India and hence the Investigating Officer filed the above application for cancelling his bail. It was during the pendency of the above application for cancellation of bail, the learned Magistrate passed Annexure A4 order in an application filed by the father of the petitioner .

3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 506(i), 354 r/w 34 of the IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above case originated in respect of a family dispute and there is a counter case also.

4. The petitioner is working abroad. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner is required to return to India and surrender his passport, he will lose his job. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial in the case and also that he is ready to appear before the court as and when called for.

In the above circumstances, condition Nos. 2 and 3 in Annexure A4 order, directing the petitioner to appear before the the learned Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of renewal of his passport and to surrender his passport, are set aside. The petitioner is also permitted to renew his passport for a period of two years.

The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

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