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) 34596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.Dias, J
Thamam Alavi Ali Almahel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 4134 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Georgie Simon
For the Respondents: Seetha S.

A petitioner must first seek modification of bail conditions from the court of original jurisdiction before invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition challenging bail conditions imposed by a Magistrate court, specifically the condition requiring confinement at a transit home, arguing it violated fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petition was filed in the High Court without first moving the Magistrate's court for modification. The court addressed whether a petition challenging specific bail conditions is maintainable under inherent powers without first exhausting the remedy of seeking modification before the trial court. The court observed that the proper procedure is to approach the court that passed the original order to seek necessary modifications, as bypassing the trial court is deemed improper. The court disposed of the case, granting liberty to the petitioner to move the trial court for the modification of the bail conditions.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning the underlying crime and challenge to bail conditions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the requirement to exhaust trial court remedies before seeking higher court intervention for bail modification. (Para 3 , 4)

O R D E R

Dated this the 16 th day of June, 2026

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.248/2026 registered by the Iritty Police Station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 23 , 24 and 8 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

2. By Annexure A1 order, the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. The petitioner states that the impugned conditions directing his confinement at the transit home is violative of the petitioner’s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court may set aside the conditions imposed in Annexure A1 order.

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

4. Annexure A1 order was passed on 06.05.2026. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed in Annexure A1 order. Admittedly, the petitioner has not moved the above court seeking modification/deletion of the said conditions. It is without moving the said court, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and filed this Crl.M.C. This according to me, is improper and unwarranted.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I dispose of the Crl.M.C. by permitting the petitioner to move the above court seeking modification of the conditions in Annexure A1 order.

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