SANTHIBHOOSHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution, inter alia, under Sections 120 B and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. He was granted bail subject to conditions. One of the conditions imposed is that the petitioner should not be involved in any other crime while on bail. The Investigating Officer filed a report informing the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner has subsequently been involved in some other crimes. The learned Sessions Judge thereupon proceeded to pass the impugned order cancelling the bail that had already been granted to the petitioner by invoking the powers under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge erred grossly in not considering pointedly the acceptability of the allegations that the petitioner is involved in some other crimes. Mere registration of the crime by the police is not synonymous with the involvement of the petitioner in some other crimes as to conclude that there has been violation of the conditions of the bond. This was an eminently fit case, where the learned Sessions Judge must have considered the materials available before him and recorded a finding as to whether the condition imposed at the time of grant of bail has been violated and liberty granted to the accused has been abused by him.

(3.) A pointed consideration of that question or any finding on that aspect does not appear to have been rendered. I do of course note that the petitioner had not appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and filed any objection to the prayer for cancellation of bail. But even that inadequacy on the part of the petitioner cannot ip so facto result in an order cancelling bail, which is one of the rare and harsh remedies which law appoints against an accused person under