PRAMOD PRASANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A5 order by which the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta cancelled the bail granted to him in S.C.No.157 of 2022, which originated from Crime No.1016 of 2021 registered at the Pulikeezhu Police Station for offences under Ss. 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 452, 427, 506,294(b), and 212 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec. 20 r/w 27 of the Arms Act. The crime was registered alleging that, on 2/12/2021, the accused attacked and stabbed Sandeep, a CPI(M) activist, resulting in his death. The petitioner who was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the crime was arrested on 3/12/2021 and granted bail as per Annexure A1 order dated22.08.2024. While granting bail to the petitioner, the High Court imposed various conditions, including the condition that he shall not involve in any other crime while on bail and added a rider that if the conditions are violated, the investigating officer can file an application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. Sometime later, the investigating officer filed an application seeking cancellation of petitioner's bail alleging that he had consciously violated the bail condition by getting arrayed as the accused in Crime No.359 of 2025 registered at the Thrikkodithanam Police Station for offences under Ss. 296(b), 126(2), 118(1), 351(2) and 324(5) of BNS. The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner, who figures as the 2nd accused in the subsequent crime, is a habitual offender and by violating the bail condition, he has became a potential threat to the prosecution witnesses in the earlier case. The prayer for cancellation was stoutly opposed, contending that the petitioner's implication in the 2nd crime is a result of conspiracy and mere registration of an FIR cannot be the sole reason for cancellation of bail already granted. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail finding the commission of the 2nd crime to be an obvious violation, which can create apprehension in the mind of the witnesses in the earlier case. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below committed gross illegality in mechanically cancelling petitioner's bail without even considering the materials pertaining to the 2nd crime. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on this Court's decision in XI, Victim SC No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (3) KHC 26] and Jamsheer Ali v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 332]. Drawing attention to the decisions in Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] and X v. State of Telangana and Another [(2018) 16 SCC 511], it is contended that bail once granted cannot be cancelled without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered continuation of the bail no longer conducive to a fair trial. It is further argued that the power to cancel bail can be exercised only when the court is convinced of an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or the trial of the case.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the court having granted bail in a case alleging commission of the offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC subject to conditions, petitioner should have been extra cautious in his conduct while on bail. Instead, the petitioner committed another heinous crime, by attacking the de facto complainant in the subsequent crime on payment of money by the 1st accused therein. By such action, the petitioner has demonstrated that he has scant respect for courts and rule of law. In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [2022 KHC 6496], the Supreme Court has held misuse of liberty, by violating bail condition, as a ground for cancellation of bail. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is a notorious criminal involved in various other crimes and if allowed to roam free, will be a menace to the society.