ORDER : C.S. DIAS, J. 1. The petitioner is the 5 th accused in Crime No.568 of 2024 registered by the Ernakulam Town South Police Station against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had received Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on the assurance of securing a job. However, the accused failed to secure the job and refused to return the money. 3. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that she is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against her. There is no material to substantiate her culpability in the crime. The petitioner is employed in the United Arab Emirates. She has to rejoin her employment immediately, otherwise she would lose the same. By Annexure-2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 31.10.2025 by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam ('Trial Court', in short). By condition Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner was directed to surrender her passport and not to leave the State of Kerala. Since the petitioner has to join her employment, she filed an application to release the passport and also to permit her to travel abroad. However, by Annexure-3 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application was dismissed. Annexure-3 order is unreasonable and unjustifiable. The petitioner has co-operated with the investigation. She is willing to appear before the Trial Court as and when directed and to avail the electronic video linkage facility as per the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ('Rules', in short). Therefore, Annexure-3 order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to travel abroad. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. By Annexure-2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 31.10.2025. It is not disputed that the petitioner has scrupulously complied with the conditions in the bail order by cooperating with the investigation. Indisputably, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been filed. 5. By Annexure-2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 31.10.2025. It is not disputed that the petitioner has scrupulously complied with the conditions in the bail order by cooperating with the investigation. Indisputably, the investigation in the case is not complete and the final report has not been filed. However, in view of conditions No.3 and 4, the petitioner was obliged to surrender her passport and also not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Trial Court. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking to modify condition Nos.3 and 4 in Annexure-2 order. However, by the impugned Annexure-3 order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner's earlier application for identical relief has been dismissed. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that Annexure-2 order was passed on 31.10.2025 and that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, and further that there is no likelihood of the investigation being completed in the near future and the trial in the case commencing, I am of the definite view that the petitioner shall be permitted to travel abroad, subject to the condition that she files applications before the Trial Court seeking permanent exemption and also to avail the electronic video linkage facility as per the Rules. 7. In Abhil C.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1650] , this Court has permitted the accused persons to appear through the electronic video linkage as per the provisions of the Rules. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Rameshan v. State of Kerala ( 2025 (6) KHC 545 ) . 8. In light of the above exposition of law and the fact that the petitioner has scrupulously complied with the conditions in the bail order, and further that the investigation is not complete and the trial in the case has not even commenced, I am of the definite view that the petitioner should be permitted to travel abroad, subject to the conditions that she seeks for permanent exemption and also to avail the electronic video linkage as per the Rules. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in the following manner: i) Annexure-3 order is set aside; ii) CMP No.4835 of 2025 is allowed; iii) Condition Nos.3 and 4 in Annexure 2 will stand set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner files applications before the Trial Court within a week from today, seeking for permanent exemption, with the specific undertaking that she shall not dispute her identity, and further that the petitioner files an application for availing the electronic video linkage as provided in the Rules; iv) If such applications are filed, the Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the applications, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the law referred to in the abovesaid decisions; v) Nonetheless, it is made clear the petitioner would appear before the Trial Court as and when directed.