ORDER : The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.883/2021 of Kasargod Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the petitioner is that on 22.09.2021 at about 12.50 p.m., the petitioner and the other accused, total of thirteen in number, obstructed the defacto complainant while he was travelling through the National Highway in a car bearing Registration No.KL-19MD-9200 with an amount of Rs.65 lakhs, and looted the said money. In connection with the said crime, he was arrested on 16.01.2022 and later, as per Annexure A1 order dated 05.03.2022, he was released on bail subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner should not involve in other crimes while on bail in this case. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner got involved in another crime numbered as Crime No.487/2022 of Koratti Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 324, 506, 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The crime above was allegedly committed by the petitioner and the other accused on 19.05.2022. In such circumstances, the Station House Officer concerned submitted Crl.M.P. No.2223/2022 before the Sessions Court, Kasargode seeking for cancellation of bail on the ground that by getting involved in a subsequent crime, he had violated the bail conditions. The learned Sessions Judge disposed of the aforesaid application after hearing the petitioner, and the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. This Crl.M.C. is filed challenging the said order. 3. Heard Sri. Prabhu K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vipin Narayan learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order cancelling the bail already granted to the petitioner is unsustainable in law. It is pointed out that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the subsequent crime, and the order of cancellation of bail was without conducting any proper inquiry with respect to the possibility of his involvement in the matter. It is pointed out that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the subsequent crime, and the order of cancellation of bail was without conducting any proper inquiry with respect to the possibility of his involvement in the matter. It is also pointed out that the subsequent offence has nothing to do with the offence in which the question of cancellation of bail arose, and under no circumstances the involvement of subsequent offence can be treated as an instance which causes a threat to the conduct of the fair trial of the previous case. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would seriously oppose the aforesaid contention by pointing out that the 5th accused is involved in other cases of which details are as follows : 1. Chalakudy PS Cri.891/2019 u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC 2. Chalakudy PS Cri.892/2019 u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC 3. Chalakudy PS Cri.893/2019 u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC 4. Chalakudy PS Cri.894/2019, u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC 5. Thrissur West PS Cri.545/2019, u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC 6. Koratty PS Cri 725/2019 u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC It is also pointed out that the petitioner was granted bail in the crime which is subject matter of this case on 05.03.2022 with the condition that he shall not get himself involved in another crime, but, despite the above condition, he got involved in a subsequent crime which occurred on 19.05.2022. It is pointed out that this is a gross violation of the condition imposed upon by the learned Session Judge in the bail order, and therefore the cancellation of the bail order based on the same is justifiable. 6. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions from either side. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision of this court in Godson and Another v. State of Kerala [ 2022 KHC 672 ] to contend that the cancellation of bail cannot be made automatically merely because of the reason that the accused got involved in a subsequent crime. Therefore, it is contended that the order is liable to be interfered with. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this case is that, the petitioner was released on bail on 05.03.2022 with a specific condition that he shall not get involved in any other crime. Therefore, it is contended that the order is liable to be interfered with. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this case is that, the petitioner was released on bail on 05.03.2022 with a specific condition that he shall not get involved in any other crime. However, within a period of three months, he got involved in another offence which is not only similar in nature, but the allegations in the subsequent crime are also very grave as well. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that almost all the other persons who were arraigned as accused in the subsequent crime also had criminal antecedents and were involved in several other cases. The nature of the allegations is also to the effect that the petitioner, along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and committed dacoity. As per the observations made by this Court in Godson’s case (supra), the proximity in time between the crime in which the bail was granted and the subsequent crime in which he got involved was also a relevant consideration to consider the question as to whether the bail is to be granted or not. To be precise, the case dealt with in Godson’s case was in relation to an application submitted for cancellation of bail after a period of three years of commission of the first offence. In this case, the period is very short, less than three months. Apart from the above, it was also observed in Godson’s case that getting involved in crime repeatedly could be treated as an instance where the fair trial of the case would be affected, as the repeated offences may create apprehensions in the mind of witnesses to be examined in support of the prosecution. Therefore, that could be taken as a ground for cancellation of the bail. Moreover, while repeatedly getting involved in offences, the accused was misusing the freedom the court granted by granting bail to him. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, in the light of the repeated crimes in which the petitioner/accused got involved and the serious nature of the allegations raised against him in this case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail, is not liable to be interfered with. Therefore, it is confirmed. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, in the light of the repeated crimes in which the petitioner/accused got involved and the serious nature of the allegations raised against him in this case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail, is not liable to be interfered with. Therefore, it is confirmed. However, it is clarified that, the order of cancellation of bail shall not preclude the petitioner from surrendering before the court and seeking regular bail. It is further clarified that, in the event of such surrender and submission of application for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the court concerned on its merits and the same need not be dismissed merely on the ground that the bail earlier granted to him stands cancelled.