Indulging In Similar/Other Criminal Activities Reason For Bail Cancellation When Such Condition Imposed In Bail Order: Kerala HC Reiterates

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that indulging in similar or other criminal activities would be a reason for cancellation of the bail, particularly, when there is such a condition imposed in the initial bail order. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, while dismissing a petition seeking the bail cancellation order passed by the court below to be set aside, observed, 

"Since the law is settled that indulging in similar or other criminal activities is a reason for cancellation of the bail, particularly, when a condition imposed in the initial bail order is to that effect, involvement of the accused in a similar offence by itself is a reason to cancel the bail granted, cancellation of bail on the said finding is to be justified". 

The petitioner in this case was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) B, C, 22(a)(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). He was arrested and later released on statutory bail as the prosecution had failed to file the final report within the statutory period. One of the conditions stipulated in the bail order was that the accused person ought not to get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail. However, subsequently, the petitioner was again discovered with two other persons possessing 9.1 kg of dried ganja, thereby being alleged of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) B of the NDPS Act, and was arrested again. He was however, subsequently released on bail. 

In this context, the prosecution filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner, as he had violated one of the bail conditions that had been stipulated in the previous order. The Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Thodupuzha, thus cancelled the bail. It is against the said order that the instant petition was filed. 

The counsels for the petitioner relied on Godson & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2022), to contend that involvement of an accused in a subsequent crime by itself is not a reason to cancel the bail. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the bail granted to the accused was cancelled as per the subsequent order, the right of the accused to defend the said case as well as the subsequent case outside the jail had been denied. 

On the other hand, it was contended by the Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer on behalf of the respondent, by relying on the Apex Court decision in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2022), that if the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity, the same would be a reason to cancel the bail by invoking the powers under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. It was pointed out that the Court had followed the same ratio in Sreeja Mannangath v. State of Kerala (2022), and distinguished the position from that in Godson & Ors. v. State of Kerala by stating that "the 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". 

The Court in this case took note of the argument advances by the counsels for the petitioner that the police could implicate anybody in a subsequent crime if they had any animosity to the accused.

"Although this argument appears to be impressive at the first blush, nothing substantiated in this case to hold that the police had any animosity towards the petitioner herein and accordingly he was implicated in the subsequent crime", it observed. 

In this context, the Court took note of the factual circumstances, and the settled legal position to hold that the bail cancellation order was justified. 

"Therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference and hence the Crl.M.C is liable to be dismissed", the Court said while dismissing the petition. 

Advocates C.P. Udayabhanu, Navaneeth N. Nath, Rassal Janardhanan A., Abhishek M. Kunnathu, Boban Palat, P.U. Pratheesh Kumar, and P.R. Ajay appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 

Case Title: Jeby James v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 43 

Click Here To Read/Download Order