Dismissed

Abdul Azeez, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2021Crl.MC/483/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of bail in an NDPS case alleging false implication in subsequent crimes. The Single Judge distinguished precedent, ruling that the condition 'not to commit an offence' includes acts leading to FIR registration, thus justifying cancellation upon violation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 483 of 2021 dismissed, upholding the cancellation of bail by the lower court.

Abdul Azeez, Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.483 OF 2021(A)

¶6

CRMP 550/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.5/2019 OF Manjeri Excise Circle Office , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. AYISHA, POOLAKKA CHALIL HOUSE, CHOOLATTIPPARA DESOM, OORGATTARI VILLAGE, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN SRI.GEORGIE SIMON SHRI.GOKIL JAGANNIVAS SMT.SURYA SUNDARESAN SMT.CHARUTHA BHAIJU SMT.TRESA AUGUSTINE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶15

17.02.2021, THE COURT ON 19.03.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C. No.483 of 2021

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2021

¶20

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.05 of 2019 registered at the Excise Circle Office, Manjeri for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner was found to be in possession of 4 Kgs of ganja on the Manjeri – Edavanna Road, at about 9.15 p.m. on 27.06.2019. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and released on 27.08.2019, vide Annexure A order. Condition No.3 in Anenxure A restrains the petitioner from getting involved in any other crime while on bail. Later, the investigating officer sought cancellation of petitioner's bail, alleging that the petitioner had got involved in two other crimes during the subsistence of the bail. By

¶21

¶22

Crl.M.C. No.483 of 2021

¶23

Annexure B order, the court below cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, finding the petitioner to have violated the conditions in the bail order. Aggrieved, this Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash Annexure B.

¶24

2. Sri.Basil Chandy Vavachan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the two crimes for getting his bail cancelled. It is contended that, mere registration of the subsequent crimes cannot be taken as a ground for cancellation of bail. In

¶25

support of this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Dolat Ram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] , wherein it is held that, cogent and overwhelming circumstances

¶26

are necessary for cancelling the bail already granted. Attention was also drawn to the decision in Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan v State of Karnataka

¶27

(Crl.R.P No.1364 of 2019), wherein the Karnataka

¶28

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.483 of 2021

¶30

High Court interfered with an order cancelling bail. It was held that the bail should not have been cancelled for reason of registration of subsequent crimes since, a person can be held to have committed a crime only when a court, after considering the material before it and hearing the parties forms an opinion to that effect, at the time of framing charge.

¶31

3. Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor, refuted the contentions and submitted that the bail having been granted subject to conditions, violation of any of the condition, by itself, is a ground for cancellation.

¶32

4. The contention of having been falsely implicated in the subsequent crimes is not open

¶33

for consideration in these proceedings. The petitioner should establish that contention by letting in evidence before the trial court.

¶34

5. The legal proposition that in the absence

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.483 of 2021

¶37

of cogent and compelling circumstances, bail once granted cannot be cancelled, is well settled. At the same time, there cannot be any doubt regarding the court's power to cancel bail, when the conditions upon which bail was granted is violated by the accused. As far as the instant case is concerned, there is no dispute to the fact that subsequent to his release on bail, the petitioner was arraigned as accused in two other crimes.

¶38

6. I am unable to concur with the proposition laid down in Dolat Ram and Khajim@ Khajimulla Khan (supra), since, in my considered opinion,

¶39

connotation of the word 'commit' used in the context of imposition of a condition in a bail order, is different from its meaning in Section 229 Cr.P.C.. For instance, under Sections 437 and

¶40

439, bail is granted to a person 'accused of an offence' and in custody and as per Section 154 (1), the officer-in-charge of a Police Station is

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.483 of 2021

¶43

duty bound to register the FIR, when information relating to the 'commission of a cognisable offence' is given. Hence, meaning of the word 'commit' in the context of a bail condition requiring the accused to not commit any offence while on bail, should be understood as any act, leading to registration of another crime, based on the accusation of having committed a cognisable offence. Perceived in that manner, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the petitioner's bail for violation of the conditions in Annexure A.

¶44

In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

Crl.M.C. No.483 of 2021

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/08/2019 IN CRL.MP 790/2019 OF HONOURABLE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT AND NDPS ACT, VADAKARA IN CRIME NO.5/2019 OF MANJERI EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE.

¶53

ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/12/2020 IN CRIMINAL MP 550/2020 OF HONOURABLE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT AND NDPS ACT, MANJERI IN CRIME NO. 5/2019 OF MANJERI EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE.

¶54

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF BAIL ORDER DATED 05/02/2020 IN CRL. MP NO.167/2020 PASSED BY HONOURABLE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT AND NDPS ACT, MANJERI IN CRIME NO.20/2020 OF EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, MANJERI.

¶55

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF BAIL ORDER DATED 09/09/2020 IN CRL. MP NO.132/2020 PASSED BY HONOURABLE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT AND NDPS ACT, MANJERI IN CRIME NO.493/2020 OF KONDOTTY P.S.

Abdul Azeez, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azeez, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brindhan @ Ranjith Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed @ Kunhappu Vs Sandeep

Lavin Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Ullas, Vs T.V. Abraham