The Kerala High Court has initiated a rigorous judicial review of a plea filed by former Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary, who is seeking judicial permission to travel abroad to resume his professional responsibilities. The request, which seeks to modify existing conditions imposed during the suspension of his sentence in a disproportionate assets case, has encountered significant skepticism from the bench due to an apparent contradiction between the petitioner's claims of severe illness during his incarceration and his current ability to travel internationally.

During the proceedings held on Monday, November 2, the court raised pointed questions regarding the factual accuracy of the health-related grounds cited by the former police chief. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the matter, underscored the court’s responsibility to maintain transparency and public trust when navigating requests for the modification of bail conditions. The judge highlighted a troubling inconsistency in the petitioner’s narrative, specifically pointing to the fact that while in custody, Mr. Thachankary was admitted to the jail hospital for a significant period.

"This is a case in which, in my knowledge, I'm not sure, the accused when he was detained in custody , he was admitted in the jail ward for 28 days. So this is his situation. How can he go abroad and do the job? I shall call for a report....So many diseases so he must get admitted in a hospital. On getting reliefs, he want to go abroad and do the job. There are absolutely contra views. How can it be justified?" Justice Badharudeen remarked during the oral hearing.

The core of the judicial concern centers on whether the health issues that necessitated hospitalization during his 4-week stint in jail are genuine or if they were utilized strategically to secure relief from incarceration. The court observed that if a defendant presents themselves as a critically ill patient during custody but shortly thereafter seeks to traverse international borders to perform work in countries such as the United States or Saudi Arabia, it raises fundamental questions about the veracity of their earlier medical claims. Such a scenario, the court warned, could fundamentally undermine public faith in the impartiality and rigor of the judicial process.

The legal dispute originates from a conviction handed down by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) in Kottayam. Following his sentencing in the disproportionate assets case, Mr. Thachankary had been granted a suspension of his sentence under specific court-mandated conditions. These conditions are standard instruments of judicial oversight, intended to balance the rights of the accused with the necessity of ensuring that they remain within the court's jurisdiction while legal proceedings remain pending. By seeking a modification of these conditions to travel abroad, the petitioner has essentially opened the door for a re-examination of the circumstances surrounding his original release, including his medical history while in detention.

In response to the conflicting submissions, the court decided that a subjective assessment of the petitioner's health claims would be insufficient. Instead, the bench moved to verify the facts through an official administrative channel. The court directed the concerned Jail Superintendent to produce a comprehensive report detailing the medical history of the former police officer during his period of incarceration.

The court-ordered report is expected to provide granular data on the petitioner's time spent in custody, specifically documenting the total number of days he was formally admitted to the jail hospital. Furthermore, the report must specify the diagnostic details and the specific medical conditions for which he received treatment while under state supervision. Crucially, the court has requested that the report also account for the number of days the petitioner was not hospitalized, a metric that the judiciary will use to determine whether the request for international travel is grounded in genuine necessity or whether it represents a shift in the petitioner's stated health status that contradicts his previous assertions.

This development highlights the heightened level of scrutiny that courts apply when convicted individuals, particularly those in high-profile positions, seek to alter the conditions of their bail or sentence suspension. For legal professionals, the case serves as a stark reminder of the intersection between personal health claims and the procedural integrity of criminal justice. When medical grounds are used to secure initial relief, the judiciary remains vigilant in ensuring that those same grounds are not summarily discarded when a shift in convenience, such as professional travel, arises.

The reliance on objective medical reporting from correctional authorities marks a significant procedural step. By requesting a neutral, factual document from the Jail Superintendent, the High Court is positioning itself to make a decision based on empirical data rather than the competing arguments of legal counsel. This approach protects the court from potential criticism of leniency while ensuring that the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to justify his request through verifiable evidence.

The case has been posted for further consideration in November, at which point the court will review the findings of the Jail Superintendent’s report. The outcome of this review will determine whether the petitioner’s travel restrictions will be modified or if the court will uphold the existing conditions based on the potential contradictions identified during the current proceedings. Until the report is submitted and analyzed, the matter remains an open question of whether a claim of illness while in jail can effectively coexist with a simultaneous claim of fitness for international employment.