conditions of the bail order. The reasons for cancelling the bail,
4. It is submitted that the petitioner herein the
6th accused was remanded and arrested on
26.03.2023. He filed Bail Application
No.2787/2023 before this Hon'ble Court. This
Hon'ble Court granted bail imposing several
conditions. The condition No.6 was that "the
petitioner shall not involve in any other offences
during the currency of bail and in any such event, if
reported, or came to the notice of this Hon'ble
Court, the same shall be a reason for cancelling
the bail hereby granted". True copy of the order
granting bail from Hon'ble High court is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure 1.
The ball was executed on JFCM Kakkanad.
5. It is submitted on 25.05.2023 at 2.00
pm, the 6th accused, the petitioner herein,
along with 7th and 13th accused committed
trespass into complainant's property. In this
property, land development work was going on.
The accused with intention to threaten to kill
her, used abusive words to the complainant,
and asked her for money for their doing work.
The case has been registered against the 7 th
and the other accused registered as Crime
No.767/2023 under Sections 447, 387, 294 (b)
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code at
Infopark Police Station and now the accused is
in Judicial Custody.
6. While so the Investigating Officer
approached the Hon'ble JFCM Court for
cancelling the bail of the petitioner/6 th accused.
The Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the
bail application on 08.06.2023. True copy of the
order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kakkanad is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure 2. The reasons for dismissal of the ball
was that on verification, it is seen that the
Hon'ble High Court has granted ball to 6 th
accused on condition in bail No.2787/2023
dated 12.04.2023. In the said bail order, the
Hon'ble High Court has not mentioned
empowering this Court to cancel the bail in
violation of any of the conditions imposed. So
this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this
application and is liable to be dismissed. The
reasoning of the Court below in Annexure 2 was
lack of jurisdiction to cancel the bail.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner herein
after the granting of bail by this Hon'ble Court
had further violated condition No.6 by
trespassing into the complainants property and
threatening along with other accused with
abusive words to the complainant and asked her
for money for their doing work. This amounts to
violation of the condition in the bail order
2787/2023 which warrants interference by this
Court by canceling the bail granted to the
petitioner in Crime No. 1015/2022.
MC.No.3730/2023 wherein it was held that
when a petitioner after granting bail was further
involved or violate the conditions granted in bail
by misusing of liberty can be the sole reason to
cancel the bail granted to him. In the above
Criminal MC, the decision of the apex Court in
[(2022) SC online 552] in P Vs. State of
Madhyapradesh and another, also quoted the
circumstances wherein the Apex Court had
adverted to cancel the bail already granted.
2. On notice, the respondent, who is the 6 th accused
3. When this matter is posted today, learned counsel
4. Insofar as the legal question as to whether what are
well settled. In the decision reported in [2022 (7) KHC 109 :
"8. In the latest decision of the Apex Court
reported in (2022 KHC 6496: 2022 (2) KLD 49 :
2022 KHC OnLine 6496 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 552
: 2022 (7) SCALE 411 : AIR 2022 SC 2183), P. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, three
bench decision of the Apex Court considered
some of the circumstances where bail granted to
the accused can be cancelled under S.439(1) of
the Cr.P.C. It has been held as under:
a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging
in similar / other criminal activity;
b) If he interferes with the course of
investigation;
c) If he attempts to tamper with the
evidence;
d) If he attempts to influence / threaten
the witnesses;
e) If he evades or attempts to evade
Court proceedings.
f) If he indulges in activities which
would hamper smooth investigation;
g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
h) If he attempts to make himself scarce
by going underground and / or
becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency;
i) If he attempts to place himself beyond
the reach of his surety;
j) If any facts may emerge after the grant
of bail which are considered
unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only
illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.
9. The learned counsel for the second
respondent placed a decision of this Court
reported in (2022 (4) KLJ 150), Godson
(Represented by, M. H. Hanis (Adv.) v. State of
Kerala (Represented by, Prasanth M. P. (Sr.PP)
& C. S. Hrithwik (Sr.PP), to contend that mere
violation of the condition of bail not to involve in
similar offences during the period of bail is not
sufficient to cancel the bail granted by the Court.
In Godson's case (supra), this Court considered
the decision of the Apex Court in Dolat Ram and
Others v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 :
1994 ICO 4306, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2018 (3) SCC 22 : 2018 ICO 103 and in
X1, Victim SC No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court v.
State of Kerala and Others, 2019 (3) KHC 26 :
2019 ICO 809.
10. In Dolat Ram's case (supra), the Apex
Court has observed as follows:
"Rejection of bail in a non - bailable case at
the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so
granted, have to be considered and dealt with on
different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail, already
granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for
cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not
exhaustive) are interference or attempt to
interfere with the due course of administration of
justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due
course of justice or abuse of the concession
granted to the accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material
placed on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail
once granted should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without considering whether
any supervening circumstances have rendered it
no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during the trial. These
principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the
High Court when it decided to cancel the bail,
already granted. The High Court it appears to us
overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant
for rejecting bail in a non - bailable case in the
first instance and the cancellation of bail already
granted."
Thus, it is clear that abuse of concessions granted
to the accused in any manner is a ground to
cancel the bail.
11. In Dataram Singh's case (supra), it was
observed by the Apex Court in the manner as
follows:
It is also relevant to note that there is difference
between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and
appeal against the order granting bail. Very
cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation
of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail are, interference
or attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt to
evade the due course of justice or abuse of the
concessions granted to the accused in any
manner. These are all only few illustrative
materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the
basis of the materials placed on record of the
possibility of the accused absconding is another
reason justifying the cancellation of bail. In other
words, bail once granted should not be cancelled
in a mechanical manner without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have
rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to
allow the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.
12. In Dataram Singh's case (supra) also,
abuse of concessions granted to an accused in any
manner is a ground to cancel the bail.
13. In X1's case (supra), it was observed as
under:
"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 P5, 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 above
said 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."
14. In P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh's case
(supra), the Apex Court referred the earlier
decisions inclusive of Dolat Ram's case (supra).
But the said decision in Dataram Singh's case
(supra) was not considered. In fact, the judgment
in Dataram Singh's case (supra) was rendered
by a two Bench of the Apex Court. Similarly, the
judgment in Dolat Ram's case (supra) also was
rendered by two Bench of the Apex Court.
15. When the three Bench decision of the Apex
Court in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh's case
(supra) held that misuse of liberty by the
accused by indulging in similar / other
criminal activity is a reason for cancellation of
bail, the said ratio shall be the binding
precedent. It is true that in Godson's case
(supra), the judgment was rendered by this
Court on 10/08/2022 and during the relevant
time also, the decision in P. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh's case (supra) rendered on
05/05/2022 would holdthe field Therefore,
the ratio in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh's
case (supra) rendered by the three Bench of
the Apex Court shall govern the principles
regarding cancellation of bail. The ratio has
been followed in another three Bench decision
reported in (2022 KHC 6591), Deepak Yadav
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. Since
the law is settled as discussed above, it has to
be held that, if the accused misuses his liberty
by indulging in similar/other criminal activity
violating condition/conditions imposed in the
bail order, the same is a supervening
circumstances to cancel the bail."
5. Recently, in the decision reported in 2024 KHC
OnLine 6302 : 2024 INSC 438 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392],
Ajwar v. Waseem, the Apex Court considered this question
after referring its earlier judgments and affirmed the
principles in paragraphs 27 and 28 as under:
"27. It is equally well settled that bail once
granted, ought not to be cancelled in a
mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or
perverse order of bail is always open to
interference by the superior Court. If there are
serious allegations against the accused, even if
he has not misused the bail granted to him, such
an order can be cancelled by the same Court
that has granted the bail. Bail can also be
revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that
the courts below have ignored the relevant
material available on record or not looked into
the gravity of the offence or the impact on the
society resulting in such an order. In P v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Another(supra) decided
by a three judges bench of this Court [authored
by one of us (Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the
considerations that must weigh with the Court
for interfering in an order granting bail to an
accused under S.439(1) of the CrPC in the
following words:
"24. As can be discerned from the
above decisions, for cancelling bail once
granted, the court must consider whether
any supervening circumstances have arisen
or the conduct of the accused post grant of
bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him to
retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v.
State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it differently, in
ordinary circumstances, this Court would be
loathe to interfere with an order passed by
the court below granting bail but if such an
order is found to be illegal or perverse or
premised on material that is irrelevant, then
such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and
interference by the appellate court."
28. CONSIDERATIONS FOR SETTING
ASIDE BAIL ORDERS
The considerations that weigh with the
appellate Court for setting aside the bail order
on an application being moved by the
aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred after
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of
the accused while on bail, any attempt on the
part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting
in delaying the trial, any instance of threats
being extended to the witnesses while on bail,
any attempt on the part of the accused to
tamper with the evidence in any manner. We
may add that this list is only illustrative and not
exhaustive. However, the court must be
cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only
a prima facie case needs to be examined and
detailed reasons relating to the merits of the
case that may cause prejudice to the accused,
ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that
the bail order should reveal the factors that
have been considered by the Court for granting
relief to the accused."
6. Thus the legal position is well settled. When a Court
grants bail after imposing conditions, violation of any of the
conditions in a bail order would lead to cancellation of bail by
invoking power under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. Section 439
(2) Cr.P.C reads as under:
"439. Special powers of High Court or Court of
Session regarding bail.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct
that any person who has been released on bail
under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to
custody. "
7. Thus misusing the liberty by violating the
conditions imposed by the court while granting bail is a
reason to cancel the bail. In this matter, as per order in
B.A.No.2787/2023 dated 12.04.2023, this Court granted bail
to the 6th accused by imposing conditions and condition No.
(vi) in the bail order is that "the petitioner shall not involve in
any other offences during the currency of bail and any such
event, if reported, or came to the notice of this Court, the same
shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted."
8. In this matter, the specific case of the prosecution is
that while enjoying the bail granted by this Court, at 2.00 p.m.
on 25.05.2023, the petitioner herein along with 7 th and 13th
accused trespassed upon the property of the same defacto
complainant and threatened the defacto complainant to kill
her, and used abusive words against her. The further allegation
is that the petitioner asked for money for doing their work.
Accordingly, another crime vide Crime No.767/2023 under
Sections 447, 387, 294(b) read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code was registered by Infopark Police Station and in the said
crime, he was arrested.
9. On perusal of the records, the allegation of the
prosecution and violation of condition No.(vi) by the 6 th
accused is primarily established warranting cancellation of
bail. Therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and the
bail granted to the respondent/6 th accused in Crime
No.1015/2022 of Inforpark Police Station stands cancelled
with direction to the respondent/6 th accused to surrender
before the jurisdictional court within a period of seven days
and on failure to do so, the trial court is directed to take
coercive steps to arrest and detain the respondent/6 th accused
in custody forthwith.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
bpr
