The High Court dismissed an application seeking to quash the order cancelling bail granted to an NDPS accused who was subsequently implicated in another crime. The court held that registration of a cognisable offence constitutes a violation of bail conditions.
Petitioner's application to quash the cancellation order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.490 OF 2021(A)
CRMP 553/2020 DATED 17-12-2020 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT, MANJERI
CRIME NO.20/2019 OF Manjeri Excise Circle Office , Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL AZEEZ AGED 39 YEARS S/O AYISHA, POOLAKKA CHALIL (H), CHOOLATTIPPARA DESOM, OORGATTARI VILLAGE, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN SHRI.GOKIL JAGANNIVAS SMT.SURYA SUNDARESAN SMT.CHARUTHA BHAIJU SRI.GEORGIE SIMON SMT.TRESA AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
(THROUGH THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).
OTHER PRESENT:
PP T.R.RENJITH;SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.02.2021, THE COURT ON 19.03.2021, THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.M.C. No.490 of 2021
ORDER
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2021
Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.20 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 in a vehicle on 07.12.2019. He was arrested on the same day and released on 05.02.2020 vide Annexure A order. The bail was subject to the condition of the petitioner not 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 another crime during the subsistence of the bail. By Annexure B order the court below cancelled the bail granted
3
Crl.M.C. No.490 of 2021
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.
2. Sri.Basil Chandy Vavachan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in another crime 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 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 are necessary for cancelling the bail already granted. Attention was also drawn to the decision in Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan v State of Karnataka (Crl.R.P No.1364 of 2019), wherein the Karnataka
High Court interfered with an order cancelling
4
Crl.M.C. No.490 of 2021
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.
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.
4. The contention of having been falsely implicated in a subsequent crime is not open for consideration in these proceedings. The petitioner should establish that contention by letting in evidence to before the trial court.
5. The legal proposition that in the absence of cogent and compelling circumstances, bail once
5
Crl.M.C. No.490 of 2021
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 another crime.
6. I am unable to concur with the proposition
laid down in Dolat Ram and Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan (supra) since, in my considered opinion, 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 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 duty bound to register the FIR, when information
6
Crl.M.C. No.490 of 2021
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.
In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/
Crl.M.C. No.490 of 2021
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/2/2020 IN CRIMINAL M P 167/2020 OF HONOURABLE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT AND NDPS ACT, MANJERI IN CRIME NO.20/2019 OF MANJERI EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE.
ANNEXURE-B CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/12/2020 IN CRIMINAL MP 553/2020 OF HONOURABLE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT AND NDPS ACT, MANJERI IN CRIME NO. 20/2019 OF MANJERI EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE.
ANNEXURE-C
TRUE COPY OF BAIL ORDER DATED 9/9/2020 IN CRIMINAL MP NO. 132/2020 PASSED BY HONOURABEL SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT AND NDPS ACT, MANJERO IN CRIME NO. 493/2020 OF KONDOTTY P S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the registration of a subsequent crime by the accused on bail violates the condition of not committing an offence and justifies cancellation of bail.
Whether the requirement of a court opinion to commit an offence under Section 229 Cr.P.C. applies to the interpretation of bail conditions.
What is the proper meaning of the word 'commit' in the context of bail conditions prohibiting commission of any offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dolat Ram v State of HaryanaDistinguished¶29
Dolat Ram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] · Who else cites this
Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan v State of KarnatakaDistinguished¶29
Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan v State of Karnataka (Crl.R.P No.1364 of 2019)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ABDUL AZEEZ
STATE OF KERALA
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
