Mere Registration Of Subsequent Case Against Accused By Itself Cannot Result In Automatic Cancellation Of Bail In Earlier Case: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the bail granted in one crime cannot be cancelled merely because the accused has been subsequently booked in another case.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that a bail that had once been granted ought not to be cancelled on the mere asking, but that there ought to be cogent and overwhelming circumstances existing to cancel the bail.

"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 which cannot be forgotten by the Court when called upon to cancel the bail. 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 arriving at the conclusion to cancel the bail, the Court must also consider whether the accused had misused the liberty granted in such a manner that it has a tendency to interfere with the due course of the administration of justice. Thus, every case presents a unique situation and close scrutiny ought to be indulged in to identify whether overwhelming circumstances are indeed present in the subsequent crime which necessitates the cancellation of bail earlier granted," the Court observed.

The petitioner accused was initially charged with offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 394 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attacking a woman and causing grievous hurt and also stealing her mobile phone. After the petitioner was taken into custody on May 23, 2022, he was granted bail on June 2, 2022. One of the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail was that the petitioner should not get involved in any other crime.

However, subsequently, the petitioner was arrayed in another crime for "displaying his nudity before a lady and brandishing a chopper" in an attempt to commit culpable homicide and shouting obscene words on a public road. The case was registered under sections 294(b), 323, 308, 354 and 354A IPC.

He was granted bail in the second crime, as well. Meanwhile, a petition was filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail granted in the first crime due to his involvement in the second crime. The Magistrate allowed the petition filed by the prosecution. 

It was submitted by Advocates Rajith and Ramakrishnan M.N. on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order cancelling bail was erroneous since the Magistrate failed to consider the absence of any overwhelming circumstance to cancel the same. It was further pointed out that the second crime was registered without any basis and was an instance of false implication. 

The Public Prosecutor Sreeja V. argued 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, and that if petitioner's involvement in the second crime is ignored, it would pave the way for the condition to become redundant. 

The court observed that while Section 437 Cr.P.C. provides for grant of bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offence when produced before a court other than the High Court or Court of Sessions, it also confers power on the court to impose conditions while granting bail.

In this case, it is in pursuance of the same that the Magistrate imposed the condition that the 'petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail', noted the court. 

The Court went on to take note of a plethora of decisions in this regard which state that bail ought not to be cancelled on the mere asking, but that there ought to be cogent and overwhelming circumstances to do so. The bail should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, it added.

The Court observed that in P v. Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2022), one of the conditions for canceling bail was if the person misuses his liberty by indulging in similar or other criminal activity. In Imran v. Muhammed Bhava (2022), it was held that certain supervening circumstances impeding a fair trial must develop after granting bail to an accused for its cancellation

The Court also made a reference to Godson v. State of Kerala (2022), wherein it was observed that a mere violation of the bail conditions was not sufficient to cancel the bail but the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary to do so based on various factors ought to be arrived at.

In the present case, the court noted that the Magistrate had, in exercise of the discretion to grant bail, released the petitioner on bail even in the second crime. Despite the same, the petitioner had remained in jail for more than two months, it added.

"Though the allegation as regards the second crime is serious, taking into reckoning the contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the absence of any injury on any person and the general allegation that the accused attempted to commit culpable homicide by brandishing a sword in a public road, this Court is of the view that the second crime cannot be treated as overwhelming enough to impede fair trial in the first crime for cancelling the bail already granted. Further, the final report in the crime in which bail was sought to be cancelled was filed much earlier and there is no allegation that the petitioner had misused his liberty against the defacto complainant therein," it was observed.

Accordingly, the Court was of the view that despite the registration of the subsequent crime against the petitioner, having regard to the nature of allegations, the order cancelling bail had to be interfered with.

It thus set aside the order canceling bail, and directed the petitioner to be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Renjith v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

Click Here To Read/Download The Order