1. The question involved in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is whether the order of bail granted by the High Court in favour of the accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the crime stage can be cancelled by the High Court after the final report was filed and after the Sessions Court granted regular bail to the accused, on the ground that the accused violated the conditions in the order passed by the High Court.

2. As per the order dated 21.1.2010 in B.A. No.202 of 2010, bail was granted to the respondent and three others in Crime No. 213 of 2009 of Badiadka Police Station. The offences alleged against the accused were u/Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Bail was granted to the respondent and others at the crime stage. Later, as the order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition, investigation of the crime was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“the C.B.I.” for short). The C.B.I. deleted some accused from the array of accused and added some others as accused. The offences alleged against the accused as of now are u/Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 and 212 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The case is now pending as SC No.156 of 2011 before the Sessions Court. The trial of the case is going on and some of the witnesses were examined.

4. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the C.B.I. u/Section 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel the order of bail dated 21.1.2010 in B.A.No. 202 of 2010 on the ground that the respondent violated the conditions in the order. One of the conditions imposed while granting bail was that the respondent herein should not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent assaulted Sheik Ali, a witness in the case, on 21.10.2011. Crime No. 358 of 2011 of Badiadka Police Station was registered against the respondent u/Section 341, 323, 324, 294 (b) and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the respondent has threatened the witnesses with an intention to prevent those witnesses from giving evidence before Court.

5. The respondent filed an affidavit in answer to the averments made in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case. The respondent stated that he was assaulted by Sheik Ali, who is his close relative. It is also stated that the respondent sustained stab injuries in the incident. Various other contentions have been raised by the respondent, which are not relevant for consideration, in the manner in which I purpose to dispose of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case. In the affidavit, the respondent stated thus:

“12. Though this Honourable Court was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner in the crime stage, subsequently the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate Court and released on bail during committal stage. After that he appeared before the trial court and the learned Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner in that stage. Therefore the present application is invalid.”

6. Both sides argued the matter in great detail. Since the maintainability of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is challenged by the respondent, it is necessary to answer that contention.

7. The averments made by the respondent, as quoted above, are denied by the petitioner. That means, after the order dated 21.1.2010 was passes by this Court, orders were passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to the respondent. Those orders were not produced by either side. The prayer in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is to cancel bail granted to the respondent on the ground that he violated the conditions in the order dated 21.1.2010. That order was passed at the crime stage. One of the conditions in the order was that the respondent herein should report before t