Bail Granted In One Case Can't Be Cancelled On The Ground That Another FIR Is Registered: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court has held that registration of fresh FIR against a person, cannot be a ground to cancel anticipatory bail already granted in another case, where the trial is already ongoing.

Justice B A Patil, said "The only ground which is made out is that two criminal cases have been registered. In what way the said cases have come in the way of the trial has also not been made out. Under such circumstances, cancellation of bail by the impugned order is not sustainable in law."

Khajim @ Khajimulla Khan had approached the court challenging an order passed by the sessions court cancelling the anticaptory bail granted to him, by an order dated July 27. It was his case that he had approached the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.178/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated November 15, 2017, allowed the petition and released the petitioner-accused on anticipatory bail by imposing certain conditions. The third condition was that the petitioner was not to indulge in similar or any offence.

The state filed an appeal for cancellation of the bail contending that the petitioner-accused has been involved in a case in Crime Nos.84/2019 and 95/2019 of Udayagiri Police Station. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides has passed the impugned order of cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

The counsel for accused argued that "The case in which the bail has been granted, trial has already been commenced and many witnesses have been examined and the petitioner-accused is regularly attending before the trial judge and there is no allegation to the effect that he is not attending the trial and intervening in the smooth trial of the case.

Further, that once the bail has been granted, without there being any substantial material to the effect that the act of the accused has come in the way of the trial in which the bail has been granted, the Court can not cancel the bail. It is his further submission that the cancellation of the bail automatically and mechanically should not be done. The court has to apply its mind and the Court has to give a finding on merits of the case. Without giving any finding on the merits of the case, the impugned order has been passed.

The counsel for State opposed the plea by arguing that "Earlier the petitioner-accused has involved in a case punishable under Section 302, 392, 201 of IPC and now the accused has involved in similar type of offences and he has committed two more offences and there is clear cut breach of the condition which has been imposed. It is his further submission that the liberty which has been granted has misused by accused No.3."

The court said :

"After going through the ratio laid down in the above catena of decisions quoted supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly stated what are the criteria which are to be looked into while considering the application for cancellation of bail. By going through the order of the trial Court, no cogent and justifiable reasons have been stated as to how the registration of the case has come in the way of trial in which the bail has been granted."

It added that "Merely because condition has been imposed while granting the anticipatory bail, then automatically it should not be cancelled on technical grounds. Be that as it may. Even the material facts indicates that the accused has granted anticipatory bail and thereafter he has appeared before the Court and regally he is attending the Court and already many more witnesses have been examined and

when there is no hurdle or misuse of the liberty granted by the accused in the said case wherein the bail has been granted, merely because some other cases have been registered and in that light if the bail is cancelled, then automatically it is going to affect the liberty of a particular person which is granted under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court while dealing with liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution has to keep in mind all the above facts and if any reasonable apprehension that the liberty granted is going to be misused, then under such circumstances the Court can exercise its power and cancelled the bail."

Advocate B.Lethif appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate M.Divakar Maddur, appeared for the state.  

Click here to download the Order