2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58923
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Dias, J
Muhammed Mushtaq – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 7490 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Rakesh Thamban
For the Respondents: Dalbi Immanuel
The court may modify bail conditions, specifically relaxing the requirement for solvent sureties, if an undertrial prisoner remains incarcerated solely due to the inability to provide such sureties, following Supreme Court guidelines on bail strategy.
Headnote:(A) Bail Conditions - Modification of Surety - Inability to provide solvent sureties - Where an undertrial prisoner remains incarcerated despite being granted bail due to the inability to provide solvent sureties, the court may modify the condition to allow sureties without solvency certificates, in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines. (Para 2, 8)
Issues: Whether the condition for providing solvent sureties can be modified when the petitioner is unable to produce them despite being granted bail.
Result: Allowed
CNR : KLHC010668852026
CRL.MC NO. 7490 OF 2026
CRIME NO.381/2026 OF Manjeswar Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.09.2026 IN CRMP 2/2026
IN CRMP NO.1 OF 2026 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2026
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.381/2026 registered by the Manjeswar Police Station, Kasaragod alleging that the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( ‘Act’, in short).
2. It is the petitioner’s case that, by Annexure A1 order, the Court of Session, Kasaragod (‘bail court’, in short), had enlarged the petitioner and the 1st accused on bail, subject to conditions. As per condition No.1, the petitioner was directed to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, since the petitioner does not have any solvent sureties, he filed an application to modify condition No.1, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re. [(2023) SCC Online SC 483] (Annexure A3). But, by the impugned Annexure A2 order, the bail court has dismissed the petition. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 15.06.2026. Although, Annexure A1 order was passed in his favour on 07.07.2026, he is not enlarged on bail due to lack of solvent sureties. The petitioner’s mother and a close relative are willing to execute the bond and stand as sureties, but they do not have landed properties. Going by the law laid down in Annexure A3 order, if an undertrial prisoner is languishing in jail for want of a solvent surety, the bail court can modify the said condition in the bail order or also enlarge the undertrial prisoner on temporary bail. In light of the above exposition of law, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail without solvent sureties. Hence, this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Undisputedly, by Annexure A1 order dated 07.07.2026, the bail court had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No.1, the petitioner was directed to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties.
5. It is the petitioner’s case that he does not have solvent sureties to execute a bond in his favour. Though he filed an application to modify the condition, the same has been dismissed by Annexure A2 order.
6. It is the petitioner's further case that, as per condition No.6 in Annexure A3 order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically stated that if the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant of bail, the concerned court may suo moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/ relaxation.
7. The petitioner contends that he does not have solvent sureties to enlarge him on bail. Nonetheless, his mother and a close relative are ready to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-, but they do not have landed properties.
8. On a consideration of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annexure A3 order, and the fact that the bail court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on 07.07.2026, which is two months now, I am of the definite view that condition No.1 in Annexure A1 order is to be suitably modified and permit the petitioner to be enlarged on bail by directing him to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with his mother and his close relative are permitted to stand as his sureties by exsecuting a bond for the like sum, without insisting for any solvency certificate.
Accordingly, the Crl.M.C is allowed, by setting aside Annexure A2 order and allowing Crl.M.P. No.02/2026 fi