Condition To Not Get Involved In Any Other Crime Not Intended To Operate Throughout Trial: Kerala HC While Setting Aside Bail Cancellation

Justice K. Babu observed that there should be overwhelming reasons for cancelling a bail.

"The Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the petitioner, never perceived the condition that he shall not be involved in any other offence to continue throughout the trial. The Sessions Judge only wanted or intended for the investigation to be completed smoothly without any interference on the part of the accused."

The accused was booked under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for allegedly possessing 2.045 kgs of ganja. He was granted bail on 23/07/2022 on conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner will not involve in any other offence while on bail. The police submitted the final report in that case. The petitioner appeared before the Court and was released on bail.

A year later, another crime was registered against the accused under Sections 324, 326, 323, 294(b), 506 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner obtained regular bail in that case. However, his bail in NDPS case was cancelled by the Sessions Judge. Against this order, the accused approached the High Court.

The petitioner argued that the conditions imposed while granting bail were not in force while he was implicated in the second offence. He argued that the prosecution has not produced any material to show that he has committed the subsequent offence. Further, he submitted that even if it is assumed that he was involved in another offence after the final report of the previous crime was submitted, there can be no interference with the administration of justice. However, the prosecution argued that the conditions continue even after the submission of final report.

The Court noted it is not the prosecution's case that involvement of the accused in the second case had any nexus with the trial or any of the proceedings in the NDPS case. The Court held that the Sessions Judge had mechanically cancelled the bail. It remarked that bail is an issue concerning the liberty of an individual and there should be cogent and overwhelming reasons for the cancellation of bail granted to an accused.

“The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.”

The court relied on Godson and Another v State of Kerala (2022) to observe that cancellation of bail should not treated as a substitute to preventive detention laws. The Court said that in the instant case, cancellation of bail resulted as a substitute for preventive detention.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Gokul D. Sudhakaran

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. G. Sudheer (PP)

Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. 1110 of 2024

Case Title: Visakh v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 730