The court can modify bail conditions based on case status and employment opportunities while ensuring the accused's presence for trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948 CRL.MC NO. 1846 OF 2026 CRIME NO.422/2025 OF Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2026 IN CRMP NO.1 OF 2026 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

DEEKSHITHA AGED 21 YEARS D/O. DEEPANGURAN, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTUVALLIKAD DESOM, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN -

683516 BY ADV SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT - STATE:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN – 682031 SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl. M.C.No.1846 of 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026 O R D E R The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.422 of

2025 registered by the Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act .

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure 1 order this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No.(e), the petitioner was directed not to leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the jurisdictional court. As the petitioner's father is employed in U.A.E. and he has secured an employment for the petitioner in a company in Abu Dhabi, the petitioner filed an application before the Court of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur ('Trial Court', in short), seeking permission to go abroad. However, by the impugned Annexure-2 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has sought for deletion of condition No.(e). Annexure-2 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-1 order was passed by this Court on 19.08.2025. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has now been filed before the Trial Court. There is no likelihood of the trial in the case commencing in the near future. By Annexure-3 employment offer, the petitioner has been offered employment in a company in Abu Dhabi. The petitioner has to join the employment in Abu Dhabi, failing which, she will lose the opportunity. Hence, Annexure-2 order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to go abroad, subject to any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. 5. Undisputedly, by Annexure-1 order dated

19.08.2025, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. The investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been filed recently. There is no likelihood of the trial of the case commencing in the near future.

6. In Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1650] , this Court has permitted the accused persons to appear through video conferencing as per the provisions of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ('Rules', in short). The above view has been followed by this Court in the decision in Rameshan v. State of Kerala [2025 (6) KHC 545] , wherein this Court has held that the accused persons can be permitted to record their plea and also participate in the trial by availing the electronic video linkage, subject to the condition that they do not dispute their identity.

7. Taking into consideration the peculiar f