Violation Of Bail Conditions By Itself Not A Ground To Cancel Bail: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that non-compliance with bail conditions alone is not a ground to cancel the bail already granted to the accused since such cancellation affects the personal liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A clarified that while considering an application to cancel the bail on the ground of non-compliance with the conditions, the court has to consider the question of whether the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or as to whether it affects the trial of the case in which the accused is implicated.

"Mere violation of the condition alone is not sufficient to cancel the bail granted by the court. Before taking a decision, the court has to conduct a summary inquiry based on the records, including the documents relating to the subsequent crime and arrive at a conclusion as to whether it is necessary to cancel the bail or not."

The petitioners were accused 1 and 2 respectively in a crime registered in 2018 under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 324 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

They were arrested and then granted bail by a Sessions Court with several conditions, one of them being that they should not involve in any other crime of similar nature during the bail period. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was completed and the final report was submitted. 

Meanwhile, the Public Prosecutor sought the cancellation of their bail on the ground that they later got involved in another crime in 2021 under Sections 143, 147, 308, 324, 506(ii) and 294(b) r/w Section 149 of IPC. The Sessions Court allowed these applications and cancelled their bail.

Aggrieved by this move, the petitioners approached the High Court. 

Advocate M.H Hanis appeared for the petitioners and argued that the order cancelling the bail already granted in 2018 based on the registration of a crime in 2021 was unwarranted. It was further contended that the fact that the petitioners were subsequently implicated for other offences by itself cannot automatically lead to the cancellation of bail already granted to them unless cogent and exceptional reasons are highlighted.

However, Senior Public Prosecutors C.S Hrithwik and M.P Prasanth contended that the petitioners were habitual offenders and therefore, no interference was warranted in the order of the Sessions Judge. 

The Court found that the condition not to involve in similar offences during the bail period is something specifically stipulated under Sections 437(3) r/w. 439(1)(a) of CrPC.

It was observed that such a condition being specifically mentioned in the statute indicates the importance and necessity to insist on the compliance of the same. However, the question here was whether a violation of this condition should result in the cancellation of the bail in all the cases.

Justice Rahman answered this question in the negative citing that cancellation of bail affects the personal liberty of a person which cannot be breached without compelling reasons. 

"In my view, merely because of the reason that such a condition was imposed while granting bail to the accused, that would not result in the cancellation of bail automatically. This is particularly because, since the order of cancellation of bail is something that affects the personal liberty of a person, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, unless there are reasons justifying or warranting such an order, the bail already granted cannot be cancelled."

Moreover, the Judge held that though the court which granted the bail is empowered to direct the arrest of the petitioners who were already released on bail, such power has to be exercised only if it is absolutely necessary.

Similarly, it was concluded that if the subsequent crime is allegedly committed with the intention to influence or intimidate the witnesses, the consideration should have been different, but it is not the case here since both crimes were entirely different and had no connection with each other. 

The Single Judge added that the petitioners being involved in other cases alone cannot be a reason to cancel the bail, unless it is shown that the involvement of the petitioners in the subsequent crime is affecting the trial of the earlier case.

If the prosecuting agency is concerned with the commission of repeated offences by the accused persons, there are ample statutory provisions available for them to initiate appropriate proceedings for subjecting the accused persons to preventive detention. The stipulations contained in Section 437(5) and 439(2) of Cr.PC cannot be treated as a substitute for preventive detention laws.

The Court also noted that there are no provisions in CrPC which specifically deals with the cancellation of bail. Instead, the power is given to the court to direct the person already released on bail to be arrested and committed to prison if it considers necessary to do so, which would have the effect of cancellation of the bail.

Therefore what is relevant is not a mere violation of the bail condition but the satisfaction of the court that 'it is necessary to do so'.

"While considering the aforesaid question, the matters such as; the time gap between the crimes, the possibility of false accusation in the subsequent case, bail granted to the accused in the subsequent crime, stage of the prosecution of the case in which cancellation of bail is sought, chances of affecting or causing interference in the fair trial of the case, etc. could be relevant.In some cases, the commission of heinous crimes repeatedly, in such a manner as to infuse fear in the mind of the witnesses, which may deter them from deposing against the accused, may also be relevant, as it is something which affects the conduct of the fair trial."

However, Justice Rahman clarified that no hard and fast rules can be laid down in respect of the same, and it differs from case to case. It was also found that the subsequent crime did not interfere with the conduct of a fair trial of the case in which he is involved. 

As such, the pleas were allowed and the orders cancelling their bail were quashed. 

Case Title: Godson v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 425

Click Here To Read/Download The Order