BINU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused in Crime No.1177 of 2020 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station. They were released on bail by order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Nedumangad in C.M.P. No.2935 of 2020 dtd. 21/12/2020. One of the conditions while granting bail was that petitioners shall not involve in any other crime. Alleging that in violation of the conditions of bail, petitioners have involved in another crime registered as Crime No.307 of 2022 of the same police station, the learned Magistrate has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners by the impugned order dtd. 2/2/2023. In this petition, under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C, petitioners challenge the order cancelling their bail.

(2.) Crime No.1177 of 2020 is now pending as C.C. No.2110 of 2021. The defacto complainant in the said crime is one Vishnudev. The offences alleged in the said crime are under Sec. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 342 and 326 r/w Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the accused were granted bail on 21/12/2020, both of them are alleged to have brutally assaulted the very same defacto complainant for which Crime No.307 of 2022 is registered on 26/3/2022. A perusal of the wound certificate of the defacto complainant in the subsequent crime, which was handed over by the learned Public Prosecutor at the request of this Court, reveals that there was near total amputation of the right lower limb at the level of knee, pursuant to the assault by the accused. The very same defacto complainant, who was assaulted by the petitioners in Crime No.1177 of 2020, has been subjected to severe assault leading to the offence of attempt to murder in Crime No.307 of 2022.

(3.) Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order of cancellation of bail is perverse and liable to be interfered with. It was submitted that the defacto complainant had assaulted the children of the first petitioner and therefore, even if the allegations are assumed to be correct, the defacto complainant having been the aggressor and even contributed to the commission of the alleged offence, the bail granted to the petitioners ought not to be cancelled. It was further submitted that the lapse of time from the grant of bail and the subsequent offence was not reckoned by the learned Magistrate and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.