Misuse Of Liberty By Accused Sufficient Ground For Bail Cancellation: Kerala High Court Reiterates

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the misuse of the liberty granted to a person released on bail is sufficient ground to cancel the bail.

The Court held as above while considering the challenge to an order of the Special Judge that cancelled the statutory bail granted to a man booked under the NDPS Act for possession of 40.5kgs of Ganja, who was subsequently found in possession of 14.250 kgs of Ganja and 850 gms of Hashish oil and armed weapons with three others.

A single bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V while refusing to interfere with the order of the Special Judge observed:

“As the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him, the learned Special Judge was well justified in canceling the bail. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. However, it is made clear that the above order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner surrendering before the jurisdictional court and seeking regular bail. “

The Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in CBI v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan, [(2011) 5 SCC 296] to hold that:

“Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding, is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail, once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. Insofar as the cases in which the application for cancellation of bail is filed for misusing liberty, the fact to be taken note of by the court is whether the conditions have been violated and that the supervening circumstances warrant the cancellation of bail”.

In the matter at hand, the investigating officer had approached the jurisdictional court for cancelling the bail granted to the Petitioner by the High Court after finding out that another crime had been registered against him under the NDPS Act, within five months of being granted bail.

The Special Judge found that prima facie materials on record would show that the petitioner had misused the liberty granted to him while being released on bail.

Adv. Sai Pooja appearing for the petitioner argued that mere registration of a subsequent crime by itself cannot be a ground for cancelling the bail already granted.

Senior Government Pleader Vipin Narayan argued that the petitioner was initially booked for possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, and subsequently he was found in possession of Ganja and Hashish oil and hence had misused the liberty granted to him.

The Court observed that while granting bail one of the conditions imposed on the petitioner by the High Court was that “The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.”

The Court referred to a plethora of Apex Court decisions to conclude that “The Apex Court has emphatically stated that misuse of the liberty granted is sufficient enough ground to cancel the bail once granted.”

The Court also observed that if regular bail is sought by the petitioner subsequent to cancellation, the following conditions must govern the grant of bail:

“If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered in the light of the principles governing the grant of bail under the NDPS Act and also as reiterated in Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., which lays down that the relevant conditions for grant of bail are;

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offense being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

Case Title: Navas V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 255

Click here to read/download judgment