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) 13244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
ABDUL HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1319 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.HAMZATH ALI V.K., SMT.AYISHA AFRIN A.V.K., SHRI.MUHAMMAD SHAMEEL K., SHRI.ABDULLA FUHAD K., SMT.AYISHA THASLEEMA N.P.
For the Respondents: SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

Court can direct reconsideration of bail conditions when trial is delayed.

Headnote:The petitioner filed for reconsideration of bail conditions after surrendering his passport as required by the court. The court had previously enlarged the petitioner on bail with conditions which were deemed unjust due to the protracted trial timeline. The court directed the Magistrate to reconsider the application based on current circumstances and allowed the appeal.

Table of Content
1. reconsideration of bail conditions in light of trial delays. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's directive to lower court for bail condition modification. (Para 3)

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.

316/2022 registered by the Ponnani Police Station and is now pending as C.C No. 526/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani, (‘learned Magistrate’ in short). By Annexure A1 order dated 13.07.2022, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. As per condition no. (iv) the petitioner was directed to surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court within seven days. Consequently, the petitioner surrendered his passport. Although the crime is of the year 2022, the trial in the case has not progressed. In order to go abroad, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking return of his passport. However, by the impugned Annexure A2 order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application on the ground that this Court has not permitted the learned Magistrate to consider an application for modification of bail conditions. Annexure A2 order is erroneous and untenable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

3. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly that the Annexure A1 order was passed by this Court on 13.07.2022 and that the trial in the case has not yet commenced, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate is to be directed to consider the petitioner’s application for modification of the bail condition.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside Annexure A2 order and direct the learned Magistrate to re-consider C.M.P. No. 6786/2022 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, notwithstanding the fact that this Court had not specifically permitted the learned Magistrate to consider an application for modification of Annexure A1 order.

Sd/-

Srs/23.02.2026 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1319 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED

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