Kerala High Court
Hamnas. T.H vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
CRIME NO.299/2025 OF MELPARAMBA POLICE STATION, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2025 IN CRMC
NO.774 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
HAMNAS. T.H
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. HASHIM, T.H. MANZIL, MANGAD, THAMARAKUZHI,
THEKKIL VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MELPARAMBA
QUARTERS, NEAR UDUPPI HOTEL, MELPARAMBA, KALANAD
VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671121
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JASNEED JAMAL
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SMT.LIRA A.B.
SMT.DEVIKA E.D.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
2
SRI.M.P.PRASANATH, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
Crl. M.C.No.8557 of 2025
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
ORDER
The Crl.M.C. is filed to quash Annexure A3 order
passed by the Court of Sessions, Kasaragod in
Crl.M.C.No.774 of 2025, cancelling the bail granted to
the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.299
of 2025 registered by the Melparamba Police Station,
Kasargod for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2) and
110 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, for short). Subsequently, the
offences under Sections 324(4) and 118(2) of the BNS
were incorporated.
3. The crux of the prosecution case is that, on
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
30.03.2025 at about 21.00 hours, the petitioner attacked
the defacto complainant with a key and attempted to
murder him.
4. The petitioner was remanded to judicial
custody on 22.04.2025. However, by Annexure A2 order
dated 23.04.2025, the learned Magistrate enlarged the
petitioner on bail. The Investigating Officer filed
Crl.M.C.No.774 of 2025 before the Court of Sessions,
Kasargod to cancel Annexure A2 bail order. By the
impugned Annexure A3 order, the learned Sessions
Judge cancelled the bail. Annexure A3 order is improper,
illegal and irregular. Hence, the Crl.M.C.
5. Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. On a reading of Annexure A3 order, I find that
the learned Sessions Judge had cancelled the bail on the
finding that the offences alleged against the petitioner
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
are serious in nature. Therefore, the learned Magistrate
ought not have enlarged the petitioner on the next day of
his remand. Nevertheless, it is further observed that,
though the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was
not necessary, enlarging him on bail would send a wrong
message to the society. Hence, the bail was being
cancelled.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submits that, the investigation in the case is complete,
recovery has been effected and the charge sheet has
been filed. The case is now pending as C.C.No.55 of 2025
before the learned Magistrate.
8. In P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2022
SC 2183], a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has succinctly laid down the principles to cancel
the bail granted to an accused. Similarly, in Dolat Ram
and others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349],
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there should be
cogent and overwhelming circumstances to cancel the
bail granted. Once bail is granted, the same shall not be
cancelled in a casual or mechanical manner without
considering whether the supervening circumstances
have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial.
9. In the case at hand, the learned Sessions Judge
cancelled the bail not due to the petitioner's post bail
conduct, but for the reason that the learned Magistrate
ought not to have granted bail to the petitioner on the
very next day of remand, as it would send a wrong
message to the society. At the same time, the learned
Sessions Judge found that the petitioner's custodial
interrogation is not necessary.
10. There is no doubt that the learned Magistrate
ought to have been more cautious and conscious of the
serious nature of the offences. However, the fact remains
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail.
Now, his personal liberty cannot be curtailed because
the learned Magistrate had not exercised his discretion
properly. Be that as it may, now, at this point of time,
since the investigation in the crime is completed and
final report is filed, I am of the firm view that there is no
supervening circumstances to cancel the bail.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow this Crl.M.C.
by quashing Annexure A3 order and confirming
Annexure A2 bail order. The petitioner is directed to
scrupulously comply with the conditions in Annexure A2
bail order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:77461
CRL.MC NO. 8557 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
299/2025 OF MELPARAMBA POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 23-04-2025 IN CMP
NO. 2017/2025 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II HOSDURG.
Annexure A3 FREE/FAIR COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-05-
2025 IN CRL MC 774/2025 ON THE FILES OF
SESSIONS COURT KASARGOD DIVISION
