Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 4 (KER)

RANJITH @ KADAVI RANJITH v. STATE OF KERALA

2021-01-04

ASHOK MENON

body2021
ORDER 1. Application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for bail. The applicant is the 1st accused in crime No.2849 of 2016 of Thrissur Town East Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 398 and 506(ii) I.P.C and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.08.2016 at about 7:30 PM, the applicant along with 6 others trespassed into the chicken shop of the de facto complainant, intimidated him using dangerous weapons, like swords and iron pipes, and attempted to commit dacoity armed with the aforesaid deadly weapons. 3. The applicant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He was granted statutory bail on 20.12.2016 on conditions. One of the conditions was that he shall not get involved in any similar offences. After completion of the investigation, the final report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. While the committal proceedings were pending as CP No.31 of 2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-1 Thrissur, the applicant got involved in Crime No.1052/2018 of Ollur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 308, 120B I.P.C and under Section 3 (a) of the Explosives Act. The investigating officer filed CMP No.2521/2019 for cancellation of bail. Vide order dated 18.06.2019 at Annexure A1, the learned Magistrate dismissed the request stating that the APP did not produce any document to show the involvement of the applicant in another crime violating the bail order. 4. In consequent to the committal proceedings, the case was taken on the files of the 2nd Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur as S.C. No 483/2019. The investigating officer filed CMP No.483/2019 under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the bail condition has been violated. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge vide Annexure-A2 order dated 10/12/2019 observed that the application is not maintainable since the jurisdictional Magistrate had dismissed the application for cancelling the bail and that the prosecution should approach the appellate Court. Moreover, it is also observed that the involvement of the applicant in another case has to be substantiated, if the bail granted to him is to be cancelled. 5. The State represented by the Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court as Crl.M.P. No.376/2020. Moreover, it is also observed that the involvement of the applicant in another case has to be substantiated, if the bail granted to him is to be cancelled. 5. The State represented by the Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court as Crl.M.P. No.376/2020. After considering the grounds stated by the prosecution, the learned sessions judge allowed the petition, and the bail granted to the applicant by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 20/12/2016 was ordered to be cancelled and the applicant was directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within 7 days. 6. Aggrieved by this order of cancellation, the applicant has approached this Court for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in crime No.1052/2018 of Ollur Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C and also under the Explosive Act. It is stated that no overt act has been attributed to the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in that crime with the deliberate intention to cancel the bail granted to him earlier. It is further stated that when the learned Magistrate as also the trial Court rejected the request for cancellation of bail, there was no propriety in the learned Sessions Judge entertaining an application under Section 439 (2) to cancel the bail. 7. Hence, the applicant prays that he may be granted bail by this Court and seeks indulgence. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Sri.Mansoor B.H and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Records perused. 9. The only question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur was justified in entertaining an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C to cancel the bail granted to the applicant, when the applications filed by the prosecution before the jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as also the Assistant Sessions Judge trying the case had declined to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. 10. Section 439(2) Cr.P.C states that the High Court or Court of Sessions may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. The powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C to grant bail is conferred concurrently on the Sessions Judge and the High Court. 10. Section 439(2) Cr.P.C states that the High Court or Court of Sessions may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. The powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C to grant bail is conferred concurrently on the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The fact that bail has been refused by the Assistant Sessions Judge to whom the case has been made over for trial will not deter the powers of the Court of Sessions to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C as that is the right which can be exercised independently by the Sessions Court or the High Court. The powers of the Sessions Court and the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C in the matter of granting bail are not circumscribed by the limitation imposed under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. Similarly the power of cancellation of bail is also conferred concurrently on the Sessions Judge as also the High Court. When a person on bail commit similar offences during the period of bail, the provisions under the aforesaid Section could be invoked by the Sessions Court on sufficient grounds. Statutory bail granted under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C cannot be under ordinary circumstances be cancelled invoking the provisions under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. But in cases where the accused after his release on bail misuses liberty, this provision can be invoked, and in such cases no overt act attributed is not a ground for granting of bail. 11. In the instant case, the applicant had clearly violated the condition imposed while granting of bail by getting involved in another crime of similar nature. Under the circumstances, the bail was rightly cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge invoking the discretionary provision under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. I find nothing wrong in that. I also do not intend to grant bail to the applicant in view of the fact that he has got himself involved in another crime during the bail period. The application for bail is dismissed.