Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1509 (KER)

Pramod Prasannan S/o Prasannan v. State of Kerala

2025-05-28

V.G.ARUN

body2025
ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A5 order by which the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta cancelled the bail granted to him in S.C. No.157 of 2022, which originated from Crime No.1016 of 2021 registered at the Pulikeezhu Police Station for offences under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 452, 427, 506, 294(b), and 212 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 20 r/w 27 of the Arms Act. The crime was registered alleging that, on 02.12.2021, the accused attacked and stabbed Sandeep, a CPI(M) activist, resulting in his death. The petitioner who was arrayed as the 2 nd accused in the crime was arrested on 03.12.2021 and granted bail as per Annexure A1 order dated 22.08.2024. While granting bail to the petitioner, the High Court imposed various conditions, including the condition that he shall not involve in any other crime while on bail and added a rider that if the conditions are violated, the investigating officer can file an application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. Sometime later, the investigating officer filed an application seeking cancellation of petitioner's bail alleging that he had consciously violated the bail condition by getting arrayed as the accused in Crime No.359 of 2025 registered at the Thrikkodithanam Police Station for offences under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 324(5) of BNS. The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner, who figures as the 2 nd accused in the subsequent crime, is a habitual offender and by violating the bail condition, he has became a potential threat to the prosecution witnesses in the earlier case. The prayer for cancellation was stoutly opposed, contending that the petitioner's implication in the 2 nd crime is a result of conspiracy and mere registration of an FIR cannot be the sole reason for cancellation of bail already granted. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail finding the commission of the 2 nd crime to be an obvious violation, which can create apprehension in the mind of the witnesses in the earlier case. Hence, this Crl. M.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below committed gross illegality in mechanically cancelling petitioner's bail without even considering the materials pertaining to the 2 nd crime. Hence, this Crl. M.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below committed gross illegality in mechanically cancelling petitioner's bail without even considering the materials pertaining to the 2 nd crime. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on this Court's decision in XI, Victim SC No. 211 of 2018 of POCSO Court v. State of Kerala and Others , 2019 (3) KHC 26 and Jamsheer Ali v. State of Kerala , 2025 KHC OnLine 332. Drawing attention to the decisions in Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana , (1995) 1 SCC 349 and X v. State of Telangana and Another , (2018) 16 SCC 511 , it is contended that bail once granted cannot be cancelled without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered continuation of the bail no longer conducive to a fair trial. It is further argued that the power to cancel bail can be exercised only when the court is convinced of an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or the trial of the case. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the court having granted bail in a case alleging commission of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC subject to conditions, petitioner should have been extra cautious in his conduct while on bail. Instead, the petitioner committed another heinous crime, by attacking the de facto complainant in the subsequent crime on payment of money by the 1 st accused therein. By such action, the petitioner has demonstrated that he has scant respect for courts and rule of law. In P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another , 2022 KHC 6496, the Supreme Court has held misuse of liberty, by violating bail condition, as a ground for cancellation of bail. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is a notorious criminal involved in various other crimes and if allowed to roam free, will be a menace to the society. 4. The legal position that consideration for grant of bail and its cancellation are entirely different, and bail once granted can be cancelled only for cogent reasons, needs no reiteration in view of the law declared by the Apex Court through various decisions, including Dolat Ram (supra). 4. The legal position that consideration for grant of bail and its cancellation are entirely different, and bail once granted can be cancelled only for cogent reasons, needs no reiteration in view of the law declared by the Apex Court through various decisions, including Dolat Ram (supra). Bail once granted can normally be cancelled only if there is an interference or attempt with due course of justice, abuse of the concession of bail or when the bail order is found to be perverse and based on irrelevant considerations. As contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, misuse of liberty by the accused indulging in similar/other criminal activity, finds a prominent place among the circumstances justifying cancellation of bail enumerated in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). 5. Even if such circumstances exit, the court below is bound to make a preliminary enquiry as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the 2 nd crime. The legal position in this regard is laid down by this Court in XI, Victim SC No. 211 of 2018 of POCSO Court (supra), the relevant portion of which is extracted below; “9. But in a case where the victim or the witnesses specifically complains of threat and intimidation and the said aspects are projected either by victim or by the prosecution before the Bail Court through an application as referred to in Ext.P-5, then it is bounden duty of the Bail Court to consider the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in a summary manner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the prosecution as well as to the affected accused concerned whose bail is ought to be cancelled and if possible to the victim as well, in a case like this. In such process of enquiry, the Bail Court could call for the records if any in relation to those allegations and if a separate crime has been registered in that regard, the records in those crimes should also be perused by the Bail Court in order to make an enquiry in a summary manner as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations therein, and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the prosecution, accused and the victim, the Bail Court is expected to discharge its solemn duty and function to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in such a summary manner and the evidentiary assessment thereof could be on the basis of the overall attendant circumstances as well as the attendant balance of probabilities of the case. Based on such a process, the bail court is obliged to take a decision whether the Bail conditions have been so violated and if it is so found that the bail conditions has been violated then it is the duty of the Bail Court to cancel the bail, but certainly after hearing the affected party as aforestated. So also, if the said enquiry process reveals that the truth of the abovesaid allegations has not been established in a convincing manner in such enquiry process, then the Bail Court is to dismiss the application to cancel the bail. But the Bail Court cannot evade from the responsibility by taking up the specious plea that since the very same allegations also form subject matter of a distinct crime then the truth or otherwise of the allegations is to be decided by the criminal court which is seisin of that crime through the process of finalisation of said impugned criminal proceedings by the conduct and completion of trial therein.” The above position is reiterated in Jamsheer Ali (supra) also. 6. 6. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge did not enter into such an exercise and proceeded to cancel the bail on finding the bail condition to have been violated, as revealed from paragraph 10 of Annexure A5 order extracted hereunder: “So considering the fact that the second accused has involved in a subsequent crime that too in the role of a hired offender by the first accused, the court do agree with the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the object of the accused, whether intended or not is sufficient to create unsafety or threat in the mind of the witnesses of the earlier case. This is one of the iconic example of the misuse of liberty given to the accused who is on bail. Mr. Narula in his treatize on "Bail or Jail" has observed that 'bail is the rule and jail only an exception;. Years go by when this observation was made and now the characteristics of the crimes are worsened and it expanded swallow the society. The accused people are generally wanted defeat the dispensation of justice by playing fraudulent techniques like intimidation of witnesses etc. The act of the second accused to attack someone as a hired offender while on bail in the earlier case in which there is a specific condition that he shall not involve any offence is obviously a violation of the bail order.” 7. On that short ground, the Crl. M.C. is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Additional Sessions court (Ad hoc)-II, Pathanamthitta is directed to reconsider C.M.P. No. 3253 of 2025 in S.C. No. 157 of 2022 and pass a fresh reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the observations herein. The impugned order having been set aside, the petitioner has to be enlarged on bail. However, in view of petitioner's involvement in the second crime, the bail bond is to be increased. Accordingly, the following direction is issued; 8. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), in addition to the bond already executed in compliance of the conditions imposed in the original order granting bail.