THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 11th day of June, 2026

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1664/2016 registered by the Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(b) and 29(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. By Annexure-A1 order, the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thrissur, enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. As per Condition No.(1) in Annexure-A1 order, the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. One of the sureties is directed to produce his title deeds in original before the said court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The said condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has repeatedly reiterated that the Courts shall not impose onerous conditions while enlarging an accused on bail (read the decisions in Faisal v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KHC 922], Okowe Chigozie Collins v. State of Kerala and Others [2015 (4) KHC 450], Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan [2023 (1) KHC 418 : 2023 KHC OnLine 6076], Ramratan @ Ramswaroop v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 KHC 8476] and Motiram And Others V. State Of Madhya Pradesh [1978 KHC 178 : 1978 KLT 747]. Therefore, he contended that Condition No. (1), directing the surety to produce the original title deeds, is unjustifiable.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moti Ram’s case has categorically held that even people hailing from lesser affluent background have to be enlarged on bail without imposing unreasonable conditions. The very purpose of imposing conditions in the bail order is only to ensure that the accused participates in the trial. In view of the exposition of law in the aforecited decisions, and the fact that the bail court has exercised its discretion by granting bail to the petitioner, I am of the definite view that the condition directing the surety to produce his original title deeds is unwarranted and unnecessary. All that the court has to look into is to whether the surety is a solvent person and is in a position to produce the accused before the court as and when directed.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, I allow the Crl.M.C by partly setting aside condition No.(1) in Annexure-A1 order, directing one of the sureties to produce the title deeds in original before the concerned court. If the court is satisfied that the sureties are solvent, then the said court shall enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to the other conditions mentioned in Annexure-A1 order.