Important points:
" The rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis.
" In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446], the Apex Court has occasion to hold that the liberty of the individual cannot be accentuated to such an extent which would bring disorder in the society.
" In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires.
" It is also settled that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby the Court below invoking its powers under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner in Crime No. 97 of 2018 of the Irinjalakkuda Police Station.

2. The skeletal facts need to be stated first. On 28.01.2018 at about 5.45 p.m., Sri. Sujith, a 26 year old man, went to the Private Bus Stand at Irinjalakkuda and confronted the petitioner, who is an autorickshaw driver, and he was asked to refrain from harassing and pestering Meenu, who is Sujith’s cousin sister. This led to an altercation. The petitioner allegedly went on a rampage and after pushing Sujith down, inflicted serious injuries on his head. Sujith was rushed to the hospital, but by then, he had fallen into a coma. Crime No.97 of 2018 of the Irinjalakkuda Police Station was registered inter alia under Sections 307, 324, 341 of the IPC. However, despite providing medical assistance, the life of the injured could not be saved. He breathed his last on 31.01.2018. Consequent to his death, a report was submitted deleting Section 307 of the IPC and adding Sections 302 and 212 of the IPC.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 05.02.2018 and by order dated 13.04.2018, he was released on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Among other conditions, he was ordered not to intimidate or influence the witnesses, who are likely to give evidence before the court, and to co-operate with the trial. The petitioner was also ordered not to get involved in any offence.

4. According to the prosecution, after being enlarged on bail, the petitioner started threatening and harassing Meenu, the cousin of the deceased. She was the star witness cited by the prosecution to prove its case. He posted messages in his facebook account and continuously stalked the girl, virtually and physically. The girl was working in the Elite Hospital as a nurse and she found it difficult to carry on with her avocation. Her father complained to the investigating officer, who, in turn, summoned the petitioner and warned him. When there was no respite, Crime No.868 of 2018 was registered at the Irinjalakkuda Police Station under Section 354D of the IPC.

5. It is also the case of the prosecution that Crime No.866 of 2018 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station was registered against the petitioner for intimidating Sri. Vidya Madhavan, a near friend of the deceased, for putting up a facebook post calling upon eye witnesses to come forward and disclose the incident which took place on the fateful day. According to the prosecution, the petitioner followed Sri. Vidya Madhavan in his autorickshaw and after intercepting him, threatened him with dire consequences, if he were to move against him.

6. Alleging that the petitioner had tampered and threatened the witnesses and that he had violated the bail conditions, the investigating officer filed a petition seeking cancellation, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge.

7. Sri. Shabu Sreedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the registration of the crimes is clearly a game plan of the investigating officer, who had an axe to grind against the petitioner. He would contend that though the first crime had allegedly occurred on 11.12.2018 and the second on 14.12.2018, both the crimes were registered simultaneously on 14.12.2018. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was having an affair with the aforesaid Meenu and her parents were totally against the said relationship. He had no occasion to either stalk the witness or to intimidate her. He would urge that the materials which were relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner are trivial in nature and in that view of the matter, this Court will be well justified in interfering with the order in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecut