Indulging In Similar/ Other Criminal Activity Amounts To 'Supervening Circumstance' For Bail Cancellation: Kerala High Court Reiterates

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated the settled position of law that misuse of liberty granted to an accused person by indulging in similar/other criminal activities, thereby violating conditions imposed in the bail order, would amount to a 'supervening circumstance' in order to their cancel bail. 

Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order while considering the petition for cancellation of bail moved by the de facto complainant/petitioner since the accused resorted to disturbing her with an attempt to outrage her modesty and committing overt acts, after his release on bail.

"...It has to be held that the accused herein has no respect to the Court order and he has been repeatedly disturbing the defacto complainant in violation of the condition imposed by this Court. Therefore, these are supervening circumstances which would tempt this Court to exercise the power of cancellation of bail", the Court observed. 

As per the prosecution, the accused person (2nd respondent herein) had been following the de facto complainant/petitioner online from 2021 onwards and in January 2022, he entered the petitioner's car and attempted to disrobe her with intention to outrage her modesty. Pursuant to this, criminal proceedings were initiated against the 2nd respondent and he was released on conditional bail by the High Court, including a specific direction to not disturb the de facto complainant in any manner.

However, upon release, the 2nd respondent again started harassing the petitioner herein through Instagram by sending obscene messages and also threatening her by contacting through various accounts in Instagram, and thus, another crime was registered against him alleging commission of offences under Sections 354D(1)(ii) of IPC, 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. Subsequently, in July 2022, when the petitioner returned from her work, the accused followed her and tried to attack her, and another crime was registered against him pursuant to her complaint. The instant petition was therefore filed by the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent in the first criminal case, for violation of bail condition. 

It was contended by Advocates P.A. Mujeeb, Reshma R., Doneeshya Kithu C.V., Roshni Manuel, Jayaraman S., Abhishek Johny, and Nirmal Cheriyan Varghese on behalf of the 2nd respondent that he had not violated any of the bail conditions. It was contended that the 2nd respondent had not been using any Instagram account, and that he had been implicated in the instant case only with an intention to wreak vengeance. "It is settled position of law that cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and was not to be likely resorted to. It is held that normally very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. The accused has not misused the liberty in any manner", the counsels argued. 

In the instant case, the crucial question before the Court was whether the second respondent had violated the bail conditions in order to cancel his bail. The Court noted that "the accused had disturbed the complainant with an attempt to outrage her modesty and the overt acts led to registration of two crimes on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant and therefore, he had wilfully violated the condition of bail imposed by this Court."

The Court took note of P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2022), in which the Apex Court had listed the circumstances in which bail may be granted, and clarified that the same was only illustrative and not exhaustive. 

The Court also relied on Dolat Ram & Ors v. State of Haryana (1959), and Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) which had held that abuse of concessions granted to the accused in any manner would be a ground for cancellation of bail. 

The Court also regarded P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh decision held that misuse of liberty by the accused by indulging in similar/other criminal activity to be reason for cancellation of bail to be the binding ratio herein. The Court noted that the same was also followed in Deepak Yadav V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2022). 

It was accordingly that the instant petition was allowed, and the bail granted to the 2nd respondent was cancelled and he was directed to surrender before the Court, on failure of which the Police was granted liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law.

Case Title: Sreeja Mannangath v. State of Kerala & Anr. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 578

Click Here To Read/Download The Order