Muhammed Nasim vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 12507 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944
                   CRL.MC NO. 9502 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 222/2020 OF ADDITIONAL
             DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

         MUHAMMED NASIM
         AGED 25 YEARS
         AGED 25 YEARS,
         S/O NASAR, RESIDING AT WILD SIDE JUNGLE STREET
         RESORT,
         ODAPPALLAM, MOOLAMKAVU POST,
         BATHERY TALUK, WAYAND DISTRICT - 673592
         , PIN - 673592
         BY ADVS.
         T.P.PRADEEP
         P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
         MINIKUMARY M.V.
         R.K.PRASANTH
         JIJO JOSEPH


RESPONDENT/STATE:

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682031



          SRI P G MANU-SR PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.9502/2022
                                   ..2..



                              ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022

This is a most unfortunate case where an accused who was

granted statutory bail by the Special Court exercising jurisdiction

under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

was arrested and committed to custody after cancelling his bail

even without hearing him. He is languishing in jail for the last

three months.

2. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.222/2020 on

the files of Fast Track Special Court - Kalpetta, Wayanad (for

short, 'the court below'). He was granted statutory bail by the

court below. Thereafter, the court below cancelled his bail on the

ground that he violated the bail condition that he shall not

influence the witnesses. In fact, a report on NBW filed by the

investigating officer was treated by the court below as a

proceedings for cancellation of bail. The bail was cancelled even

without issuing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has now

approached this court to quash the order cancelling his bail

invoking jurisdiction vested with this court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.

Crl.M.C.No.9502/2022 ..3..

3. I have heard Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor.

4. The court below has committed serious illegality in

cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner without hearing him.

The cancellation of bail is directly linked with personal liberty

which is one of the cherished constitutional freedom guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This court in

Muhammed Yasin v. Station House Officer [2022(6)KLT 630]

has held that, when the cancellation of bail is sought either on

the ground of post conduct of the accused like violation of the

conditions of the bail or on the ground of the occurrence of

supervening circumstances, the court must issue notice to the

accused to explain why the bail granted to him should not be

cancelled. It was further held that, the order cancelling the bail

unilaterally without hearing the accused cannot withstand legally.

5. It is pertinent to note that the order impugned in the

above decision was also passed by the very same judge who

passed the impugned order in this case.

6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order Crl.M.C.No.9502/2022 ..4..

cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. The court below

shall reconsider the proceedings initiated for cancellation of bail

after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file an

objection and for hearing. The petitioner shall be released from

judicial custody forthwith.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to

the learned Special Judge for future compliance in similar

matters. This Crl.M.C.is disposed of.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE APA