Kerala High Court Deletes Bail Condition Barring Travel Based on Parity with Co-Accused in BSNL Co-op Society Case (Crl.MC 4091/2025) - 2025-05-19

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Eases Bail Condition for Accused in BSNL Co-op Society Case, Cites Parity

Ernakulam, Kerala - The High Court of Kerala, in a significant order dated May 19, 2025, has modified the bail conditions for K. Manoj Krishnan , an accused implicated in nearly 1,000 criminal cases related to the BSNL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. Justice V.G.Arun , presiding over the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.MC No. 4091 of 2025), ordered the deletion of a bail condition that prohibited Mr. Krishnan from leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission.

The court, however, stipulated that Mr. Krishnan must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and must furnish his address and contact details whenever he leaves the State.

Case Background

K. Manoj Krishnan faces numerous allegations, including breach of trust, misappropriation, and cheating, in connection with his role as an office bearer of the BSNL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. He had previously been granted bail in several of these cases (referenced as Annexures A2 to A229 in the court record), subject to certain conditions.

The current petition sought the deletion of two specific bail conditions:

1. Condition No. 2: Requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 12 noon every Saturday until the final report is filed.

2. Condition No. 4: Prohibiting the petitioner from leaving the jurisdiction of the Court without permission.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel , led by Adv. Jibu P Thomas, argued for the deletion of Condition No. 4 by pointing to a precedent (Annexure A233 order). In that instance, a similar travel restriction imposed on a co-accused in the same set of cases was lifted by the High Court. The counsel contended that Mr. Krishnan was entitled to similar relief on grounds of parity. Regarding Condition No. 2, it was submitted that this condition would naturally cease to operate once the final report in a case is filed.

The Learned Public Prosecutor, M.C. Ashi , representing the State of Kerala, opposed the plea. The prosecution emphasized the gravity of the offenses and highlighted that final reports had been filed in only 113 of the approximately 1,000 cases, with investigations still pending in the remaining matters. This implies that Condition No. 2 would still be relevant for a large number of unresolved cases.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

On Condition No. 2 (Appearance before Investigating Officer): Justice Arun observed that this condition, requiring Saturday appearances before the Investigating Officer, is "rendered otiose with the filing of the final report." The court clarified: > "Therefore, no separate order need be passed with respect to Condition No.2." This means the condition automatically becomes ineffective in any specific case once its final report is submitted, without needing a separate deletion order for each. For cases where investigations are ongoing and final reports are yet to be filed, this condition would presumably continue.

On Condition No. 4 (Restriction on Leaving Jurisdiction): The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument for parity. The judgment noted: > "As far as Condition No.4 is concerned, an identical condition imposed by this Court while granting bail to another accused having been lifted by Annexure A233 order, the same benefit ought to be extended to the petitioner also."

Based on this reasoning, the Court disposed of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case with the following key directive: > "Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of by deleting Condition No.4 in Annexures A2 to A229 orders."

Implications of the Order

The deletion of Condition No. 4 grants K. Manoj Krishnan greater freedom of movement. However, this is balanced by the new directive: > "Needless to say, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer as and when directed and shall furnish his address and contact details, whenever he leaves the State."

This ensures that while the blanket prohibition on travel is removed, Mr. Krishnan remains accountable and accessible to the investigating authorities. The ruling underscores the principle of parity in the application of bail conditions, especially when co-accused in similar circumstances have received relief. It also clarifies the self-expiring nature of certain investigative cooperation conditions upon the filing of final reports.