The Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Benchu Kurian Thomas while dealing with the criminal case wherein the Petitioner was arrested for offences punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 308, 354, and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ordered that Bail granted in crime cannot be rejected on the mere ground that Accused has been subsequently booked in another case.
It was held that the mere registration of a subsequent crime against the Accused by itself cannot result in an automatic cancellation of bail. Registration of a subsequent crime is only an indication of an allegation or a complaint of the Accused having been involved in a subsequent crime. The presumption of innocence available to the Accused in the second crime, the right to liberty as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which envelopes every provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure are factors that cannot be forgotten by the Court when called upon to cancel the bail.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was an accused in one case, alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 394, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
While on bail in the first case, the Petitioner was arrayed as accused of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 308, 354, and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Petitioner was granted Bail in this case as well.
A petition was filed through the Prosecutor to cancel the bail granted in the first crime due to his involvement in the second crime in violation of the bail conditions. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail due to his participation in the subsequent crime.
So, in the present case, the question arose Should the bail granted in one crime be cancelled merely because the Accused had, in alleged violation of the conditions of bail, got himself entangled in a subsequent crime?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the Learned Magistrate failed to consider the absence of any overwhelming circumstance to cancel the bail, as held in various decisions of the Supreme Court. Further, the second crime was registered without any basis and was an instance of false implication, solely to attempt cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioner.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that the condition imposed while granting bail that the Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail, ought to be given the sanctity it deserves.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and noted that the Learned Magistrate while granting bail imposed a condition that the 'petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail'.
It was expounded that bail once granted ought not to be cancelled for the mere asking. There must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances existing to cancel the bail which should not be resorted to mechanically also.
It was held that the mere registration of a subsequent crime against the Accused by itself cannot result in an automatic cancellation of bail. Registration of a subsequent crime is only an indication of an allegation or a complaint of the Accused having been involved in a subsequent crime. The presumption of innocence available to the Accused in the second crime, the right to liberty as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which envelopes every provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure are factors that cannot be forgotten by the Court when called upon to cancel the bail.
Moreover, it was held that the possibility of false accusations being alleged with oblique motives also cannot be ignored. The nature of the subsequent offence and the persons against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, the stage of the case wherein cancellation is sought are also factors that require appreciation. Apart from the above, while concluding to cancel the bail, the Court must also consider whether the Accused had misused the liberty granted in such a manner that it tends to interfere with the due course of the administration of justice.
In the present case, the Bench observed that the second crime was not overwhelming enough to cancel the bail in the first case.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the Accused was released from custody and Appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Renjith v. State of Kerala
Coram: Justice Benchu Kurian Thomas
Case No: Crl. Mc No. 854 of 2023
Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant: Sri. Rajit and Sri Ramakrishnan
Advocate of Respondent: Smt Sreeja V, PP
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
