The Kerala High Court has officially sought a formal response from the state government regarding a petition filed by former Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary. The petition, submitted in the wake of his recent release on bail , seeks a modification of the standing judicial conditions that currently restrict the retired officer from traveling outside of India. This procedural development follows a conviction in a high-profile disproportionate assets case, marking a significant juncture in the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the retired official’s personal and professional liberty.

Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the matter, underscored the necessity of hearing the prosecution’s specific objections before the court could adjudicate on the request to travel. The court has subsequently scheduled the hearing for November 2 , granting the state additional time to formulate its position. During the initial hearing, the Bench orally noted that because the petitioner had only recently been released on bail —a transition from judicial custody to conditional liberty granted on October 15 —a cautious approach regarding the relaxation of travel restrictions is warranted.

Seeking Permission to Resume Overseas Employment

In his application, Thachankary has articulated a pressing need to return to the United Arab Emirates, where he has maintained employment for the three years since his formal retirement from the police force. The former Director General of Police maintains that his professional obligations abroad are a core component of his post-retirement life and that the existing travel ban significantly impedes his ability to meet these commitments. His legal representatives argued that the circumstances of his employment require his physical presence and that his request to travel is based on a practical necessity rather than an attempt to circumvent the pending judicial process.

Thachankary further emphasized that he has demonstrated a consistent record of cooperation with the judicial system throughout the extended period of his trial. He pointed specifically to the fact that he attended sixty-six sittings of the trial court in Kottayam during the litigation process, noting that even during the pendency of the case, he was granted permission to travel abroad on multiple occasions without incident. By highlighting this history, the petitioner seeks to reassure the Court that he is not a flight risk and that his movements are governed by legitimate professional requirements rather than an intent to abscond or evade the consequences of his conviction.

Bail Conditions and Financial Compliance

The current travel restriction was among the standard conditions imposed by the Kerala High Court when it suspended the four-year sentence previously awarded by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam . In the conviction ruling, the trial court had held Thachankary accountable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , which relates to the possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. In addition to the four-year prison term, the trial court had imposed a significant financial penalty of ₹30.84 lakh.

In his latest submission to the High Court, Thachankary emphasized that he has acted in good faith regarding his compliance with the bail orders issued on October 15 . A key point of his argument is the assertion that he has already deposited 75% of the total fine amount specified by the lower court’s order. This proactive measure is presented as evidence of his willingness to adhere to the court’s mandates and fulfill his financial obligations, despite the ongoing appeals process. He argues that having satisfied the primary financial conditions of his bail , the further restriction on his mobility represents an unnecessary hardship that disrupts his livelihood without serving a critical preventive purpose in the administration of justice.

Judicial Review of Prosecution Objections

The High Court’s decision to request a response from the State of Kerala reflects the standard procedural requirement to ensure the prosecution is given an opportunity to contest the modification of bail terms. In criminal matters, particularly those involving convictions for corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, courts maintain strict oversight over the conduct of the accused to ensure that the integrity of the sentencing process remains intact. The state’s reply, due by the next hearing on November 2 , is expected to address whether there are objective grounds to fear that the petitioner might not return to face further judicial proceedings if allowed to resume his work in the UAE.

As the case moves toward the November hearing, the central legal issue remains the balance between an individual’s right to engage in professional work—especially following retirement—and the Court’s duty to ensure the accused remains accessible for the duration of the appeal. While Thachankary’s record of trial attendance serves as a primary pillar of his argument, the Court must also weigh the seriousness of the conviction and the state’s interest in securing his presence.

The proceedings will continue early next month, at which point the Court will decide if the petitioner has provided sufficient justification to warrant a relaxation of the current travel prohibitions. For now, the existing conditions, which explicitly forbid him from leaving the country without prior judicial authorization , remain firmly in effect. The outcome of the upcoming hearing will effectively set the tone for the logistical management of the case during the appeal period, determining whether the petitioner will be permitted to bridge the gap between his personal commitments in the UAE and his ongoing legal obligations in Kerala. The court’s focus remains anchored on ensuring that the balance of justice is maintained while respecting the procedural rights afforded to the petitioner within the framework of bail .