The High Court of Kerala held that bail conditions cannot be used to convert bail into detention, and quashed a condition requiring a foreign national to stay in a transit home until completion of trial. In Apple Barua vs. State of Kerala & Anr., the petitioner, a Bangladeshi national, was granted default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC in a case relating to alleged forgery and illegal procurement of an Indian passport. However, the Magistrate imposed conditions mandating his stay in a transit home, effectively amounting to continued custody. The petitioner challenged this as a violation of Article 21. The Court held that the purpose of bail conditions under Sections 437(3) and 439 CrPC is limited to ensuring fair trial—such as preventing absconding or tampering with evidence—and cannot be punitive or excessive. The phrase “interest of justice” cannot be stretched to justify detention-like conditions. The Court further clarified that powers to detain or restrict movement of foreigners lie with the civil authorities under the Foreigners Order, 1948, not with criminal courts granting bail. Since default bail is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21, imposing such conditions defeats its very object. Accordingly, the impugned conditions were struck down as unconstitutional.