In this criminal miscellaneous case, the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order cancelling the petitioner’s bail. The court held that the petitioner violated stringent bail conditions by committing a subsequent crime within six months, making the Magistrate’s cancellation order appropriate.
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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 900 OF 2022
Crime .No.486/2021 of Kadakkavoor Police Station
PETITIONER/S:
SREEJITH @ GIRISH AGED 40 YEARS KOCHUKALLAYIL VEEDU, KANJIRAM, KULAMUTTAM POST, KAVALAYOOR DESOM, MANABOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695611
BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.M.C No.900 of 2022
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 1 st accused in Crime .No.486/2021 of Kadakkavoor Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act.
2 . The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of an incident that occurred on 09.05.2021 and immediately thereafter on 11.05.2021 the petitioner was arrested and detained in judicial custody. Later, as per the Annexure-1 order passed by this Court, the petitioner was granted bail on 28.06.2021.
3 . The aforesaid bail was granted by this Court even after taking into account the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and specifically taking note of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. While releasing the petitioner on bail, stringent conditions were imposed by this Court and one of the said conditions was that he shall not get involved in any crime during the bail period. It was also directed that, he
3
Crl.M.C No.900 of 2022
shall not leave Thiruvananthapuram district without the permission of the jurisdictional court. As per condition No.(vii) it was stipulated that, in case of violation of any of the conditions the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law. On the basis of the same, the petitioner was released from judicial custody but later he got himself involved in another offence on 06.12.2021. The aforesaid case is registered as Crime No. 1952/2021 of Kadakavur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 294(b), 324, 506, 365 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959. Therefore, the Inspector of Police, Kadakavur submitted Crl.M.P NO. 438/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala to cancel the bail and as per Annexure-2 order, the aforesaid bail has been canceled. This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order.
4 . Heard Sri. P.Anoop (Mulavana), the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sreeja V, the learned counsel appearing for the State.
4
Crl.M.C No.900 of 2022
5 . The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that,
the order of cancellation of bail is unwarranted and no sustainable
reasons are stated which justifies the cancellation of bail.
6 . It is pointed out that, mere involvement of the
petitioner in a subsequent crime cannot be treated as a valid ground for canceling the bail already granted. It is also pointed out that in the subsequent crime also the petitioner was granted bail, even after taking note of his alleged involvement in the earlier cases.
7 . On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would seriously oppose the aforesaid contentions. It is pointed out that, the petitioner was found involved in another crime within six months from the date of his release on bail in the earlier crime. It is highlighted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, this Court vide Annexure-1 order granted bail to the petitioner only under exceptional circumstances owing to Covid-19 pandemic with stringent conditions. One of the said conditions was not to get himself involved in the offence and it is also specifically stipulated
that in the case of violation it shall be lawful for the Judicial First
5
Crl.M.C No.900 of 2022
Class Magistrate to cancel the bail. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the aforesaid conditions would clearly indicate the stringent nature of the order passed by this Court, and the petitioner was under an obligation to comply with the aforesaid conditions.
8 . After hearing both sides and perusing the records, I am of the view that, there is some force in the contentions put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor. The allegations raised against the petitioner in both the crimes are very serious in nature. The proximity between the first crime and the subsequent crime are very close. It is to be noted that the subsequent crime was allegedly committed by the petitioner within the period of six months and the allegation in that case also are similar with the earlier crime. In Annexure-1 order this Court has specifically mentioned that in the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be liable to be cancelled. Since the petitioner got himself involved in a subsequent crime despite such stringent conditions, I am of the view that, no interference is warranted in the order passed by the
6
Crl.M.C No.900 of 2022
learned Magistrate, since the same is in tune with the directions issued by this Court as per Annexure-1. Therefore, I am of the view that,this is not a fit case in which the powers of this Court are to be exercised and to grant any relief to the petitioner.
Therefore, I do not find any merits in this Crl.M.C and accordingly it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that, the cancellation of the bail and the confirmation of the said order by this Court shall not preclude the petitioner in submitting an application for regular bail before the court concerned and upon submission of any such application, the same can be considered by the appropriate court on its merits.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
rpk
Crl.M.C No.900 of 2022
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 900/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-06-2021IN BAIL APPL. NO. 4366 OF 2021. Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-01-2022 IN CRL MP 438/2022 IN CRIME NO 486/2021 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of cancellation of bail by the Magistrate is sustainable given the petitioner’s involvement in a subsequent crime within six months of release while violating bail conditions.
Whether the High Court should exercise its powers to interfere with the Magistrate’s order cancelling bail.
SREEJITH
STATE OF KERALA
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
