Point of law: There are no provisions in Cr.PC which specifically deal with cancellation of bail and instead, power is given to court as per sections 437(5) and 439(2) to direct person already released on bail, to be arrested and committed to prison, if it considers necessary to do so.

ORDER :

[Crl.MC Nos.2807/2022, 2814/2022]

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.160/2018 of Kalady Police Station. The petitioner in Crl.M.C No.2814/2022 is the 1st accused and the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.2807/22 is the 2nd accused in the said crime. The aforesaid crime was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 341,308 and 324 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The petitioners were arrested in connection with the said case and later, as per order dated 9.2.2018 in Crl.M.C.No.197/2018, the 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam, granted bail to them subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that they should not involve in any other crime of similar nature during the bail period. Subsequently, the investigation in the said case is completed, and the final report has been submitted.

3. Later, Crl.M.P.Nos.249/2022 and 247/2022 were submitted by the Public Prosecutor for cancellation of their bail. The sole reason highlighted in the said petition is that both the petitioners are subsequently involved in Crime No.1159/2021 of Kuruppampady Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 308, 324, 506(ii) and 294(b) r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, as per orders dated 24.2.2022 allowed the said applications after hearing the petitioners and thereby, the bail granted to them was cancelled. These orders are now under challenge in this Crl.M.Cs.

4. Heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Senior Public Prosecutors for the State.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of cancelling the bail already granted in the year 2018 based on the registration of a Crime in the year 2021 is unwarranted. It is pointed out that, in the subsequent crime also, the petitioners were granted bail and are complying with the bail conditions therein. As far as the case in which the impugned order is passed is concerned, the same is pending trial as the final report is already submitted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they were falsely implicated in the subsequent crime, and it is also not a case which causes any interference in the trial of the earlier case, as there is no allegation that the alleged victim in the subsequent crime is a witness in the crime which is the subject matter of the order impugned in this case. It is further contended that the fact that the petitioners were subsequently implicated for the offences, by itself cannot automatically lead to the cancellation of the bail already granted to them unless cogent and exceptional reasons are highlighted.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor would seriously oppose the aforesaid submission. It is pointed out that, the petitioners are involved in several cases. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2807/2022 is involved in Crime Nos. 159/2018 of Kalady Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341,324,307 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, Crime No 160/2018 of Kalady Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341,324,308 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, Crime No 977/2018 of Kalady Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341,323,324,308 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, Crime No 1499/2018 of Kalady Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506,294(b) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Crime No 1247/2020 of Kalady Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 294(b) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. It is also pointed out that the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.2807/2022 was also detained as per the order passed by the District Collector under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the aforesaid petitioner is a habitual offender and therefore, no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Sessi