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) 13452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
AL RASHAD A – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1706 OF 2026 | S.C.No.2341/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.R. Sarin
For the Respondents: M.P. Prasanth

The High Court may exercise its inherent powers to modify unreasonable bail conditions when the investigation is complete.

Headnote:The petitioner, represented by counsel, appealed against an order denying modification of bail conditions set by the Additional Sessions Judge for a drug-related offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The court considered the completeness of the investigation and deemed the imposed condition unnecessary. The inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were invoked to allow the appeal, deleting the specific bail condition while emphasizing the need for future compliance with court orders.

Table of Content
1. case facts and procedural history (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both sides (Para 3)

O R D E R Dated this the 26th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the 6th accused in S.C.No.2341/2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, which has originated from Crime No.915/2024 registered by the Vellarada Police Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii) C, 8(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure A2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No.5, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday, until further orders. Since the investigation in the case is complete and the complaint is filed, the petitioner had filed an application before the above court, seeking modification of condition No.5. However, by Annexure A3 order, the said court has dismissed the application, on the ground that the contraband involved in the case is of a commercial quantity and, therefore, there is every likelihood of the petitioner committing a similar offence. Annexure A3 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. Indisputably, Annexure A2 order was passed on

21.11.2025, after the investigation was complete and the complaint was filed before the said court. Therefore, I am of the definite view that there is no necessity for the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer, after the filing of the complaint. In case the petitioner violates any of the conditions in Annexure A2 order, the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to move the said court and seek for cancellation of Annexure A2 order rather than imposing condition that he should unnecessarily appear before the Investigating Officer. Thus, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside Annexure A3 order and deleting condition No.5 in Annexure A2 order. Nonetheless, the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed.

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