Kerala High Court
Muhammed Mansoor vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
Crl.M.C.No.7505/25
1
2025:KER:71816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7505 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1016/2021 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.05.2025 IN SC
NO.157 OF 2022 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT/RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED MANSOOR
S/O SHERIEF, KUNNIL VEEDU MYMOON NAGAR,KOYIPPADI
VILLAGE MANJESWARAM,KASARAGOD, PIN - 671323
BY ADV SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.09.2025, THE COURT ON 25.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.7505/25
2
2025:KER:71816
V.G.ARUN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.No.7505 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A4 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 4th accused in the crime was arrested on
03.12.2021 and granted bail as per Annexure A1 order dated
26.09.2024. While granting bail to the petitioner, the High
2025:KER:71816
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.701 of 2024
registered at the Kumbala Police Station for the offence under
Section 303(2) of BNS. The subsequent crime is registered on
the allegation that the petitioner had committed theft of a
motor cycle in the early hours of 02.11.2024. The prayer for
cancellation was stoutly opposed, contending that the
petitioner is falsely implicated in the second crime 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
2nd crime to be an obvious violation, which can create
2025:KER:71816
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 second crime. Reference in this
regard is made to the observation at paragraph 9 of the
impugned order that the petitioner had subsequently
committed a graver crime with the object of pursuading the
witnesses in the earlier case and to create a situation which is
not conducive to a fair trial. Attention is also drawn to the
observation in the same paragraph that the petitioner has
formed a gang in Kasaragod and committed theft of the motor
cycle as evident from the FIS, FIR and consequential
investigation reports. Learned counsel contended that, by no
stretch of imagination can theft be termed a graver offence
than murder and the FIR, FIS or reports do not even indicate
that the petitioner had formed a gang for committing theft.
2025:KER:71816
According to the counsel, incorporation of the above incorrect
facts in the impugned order is proof of non application of mind.
It is pointed out that the petitioner was granted bail in the
second crime as per Annexure A5 order after 43 days of judicial
custody, after taking all relevant factors into consideration,
including gravity of the offence alleged. 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 serious crime, by
stealing a motor cycle in the middle of the night. Referring to
2025:KER:71816
Annexure A3 remand report in the second crime, it is pointed
out that the CCTV footage recording of the theft reveals that
the petitioner had stolen the motor cycle along with another
person. This would indicate that the petitioner is part of a gang
formed for the purpose of committing the theft. According to
the Public Prosecutor, by committing the second offence,
petitioner has demonstrated that he has scant respect for court
orders and the 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. Finally it is submitted that the petitioner
was arrested and sent to jail pursuant to the impugned order
and his remedy therefore is to move for regular bail.
4. The legal position that the considerations 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 and Others v.
2025:KER:71816
State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349]. Bail once granted can
normally be cancelled only if there is an interference or attempt
to interfere 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. Of course, 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). Even if
so, the court below is bound to make a preliminary enquiry as
to the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the second crime.
The legal position in this regard is clear from the decision in
Jamsheer Ali v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 332].
5. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge did not
enter into such an exercise, but proceeded on the premise that
the petitioner had committed a graver offence and had formed
a gang for committing theft. As rightly contended by the
counsel for the petitioner, there is no basis for the said findings.
2025:KER:71816
The offence of theft is not graver than murder and the FIR,
remand report or the application for cancellation of bail do not
contain an allegation that the petitioner had formed a gang of
thieves. Another pertinent aspect is that the petitioner had
been granted bail in the second crime by the time the
impugned order cancelling his bail in the first crime was
passed. The said crucial factor is also not considered by the
learned Sessions Judge. Being so, the impugned order cannot
survive legal scrutiny.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C. is allowed
and the impugned order set aside. The Additional Sessions
Court-I, Pathanamthitta is directed to reconsider C.M.P.No.3545
of 2025 in S.C. No. 157 of 2022 and pass a fresh reasoned
order, adverting to the observations herein. The impugned
order having been set aside, the petitioner is liable to be
released. However, in view of petitioner's involvement in the
second crime, the bail bond is to be increased. Accordingly, the
following direction is issued;
2025:KER:71816
The petitioner shall be released 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.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sj
2025:KER:71816
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IN B.A NO.
7682/2024 DATED 26.09.2024 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN
CR.NO.701/2024 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION
DATED 19.11.2024
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL CANCELLATION
REPORT FILED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DATED
24.04.2025
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP
NO.3545/2025 IN S.C NO.157/2022 DATED
08.05.2025
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER IN CMP
NO.526/2025 IN CRIME NO. 701/2024 OF
KUMBLA POLICE STATION
