IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Sreeja Mannangath, D/O Sreedharan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.M.Appl.No.3 of 2022 In Bail Appl. No. 3513 of 2022
Decided on : 08-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 354(A)(l)(i) and 354D - Kerala Police Act – Section 120(o), 119(b) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439(1) - Cancel Bail - Violation of Condition - Petition filed by complainant to cancel bail granted to accused - Whether second respondent herein violated bail conditions so as to cancel his bail - Accused has no respect to Court order and he has been repeatedly disturbing defacto complainant in violation of condition imposed by this Court – Para 20.
Finding of the Court :
After release of accused on bail by this Court, he started harassing defacto complainant through Instagram by sending obscene messages and also threatening her by contacting through various accounts - It appears that this Court granted bail to accused by imposing conditions inclusive of Condition No.vii with specific direction that accused shall not disturb defacto complainant in any manner, but violating said condition, accused had disturbed complainant with an attempt to outrage her modesty and overt acts led to registration of two crimes on basis of statement given by defacto complainant and therefore, he had wilfully violated condition of bail imposed by this Court - Thus, it has to be held that accused herein has no respect to Court order and he has been repeatedly disturbing defacto complainant in violation of condition imposed by this Court - Therefore, these are supervening circumstances which would tempt this Court to exercise power of cancellation of bail - Therefore, Court is inclined to cancel bail to accused.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
ORDER :
Crl.M.A.No.3 of 2022
This is a petition filed by the defacto-complainant in Crime No.385 of 2022 of Kalamasssery Police Station to cancel the bail granted to the accused in the above crime. The accused is the second respondent in this petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. In this case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per order dated 13.05.2022 in B.A.No.3513 of 2022, this Court granted bail to the second respondent/accused in Crime No.385 of 2022 of Kalamasssery Police Station, subject to certain conditions. Condition No.vii is that “it is specifically directed that the petitioner shall not disturb the defacto complainant in any manner and any such occurrence, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail to the petitioner.”
4. Thereafter, violating Condition No.vii, the second respondent, on 22.03.2022 and 26.06.2022, followed the defacto complainant and outraged her modesty. Accordingly, the defacto complainant violated Condition No.vii and therefore, his bail is liable to be cancelled.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor also conceded that the second respondent herein involved in two other crimes, after releasing him on bail and therefore, the second respondent had violated Condition No.vii in the bail order.
6. While opposing cancellation of bail, the learned counsel for the accused/second respondent submitted that the second respondent did not violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court. The contentions raised by the second respondent as could be read out from his objection filed in this matter is as under:
5. This 2nd respondent was implicated as accused in Crime No.355/2022 of Elamakara Police Station. The offences alleged are under Section 354(d)(i)(ii) of IPC, 120(o) of KP Act. The 2nd respondent is innocent of the offences alleged in that case. On a mere perusal of the FIS given by the defacto complainant it is clear that it was one Altaf who send message through Instagram. The accused is not using any Instagram account. This 2nd respondent can prove his innocence during trial. It was with an intention to wreak vengeance against the 2nd respondent that he was implicated in the said case.
6. The allegation in Crime No.741/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station is a false allegation. This respondent was not present in the alleged place of occurrence during the relevant time. The respondent is residing in Thalassery. He is at present working as a waiter in Hotel at Thalassery. As there is a condition in the bail order that this respondent shall not enter the limits of Kanayannur Taluk he did not enter Kanayannur Taluk. It is with an intention to harass the respondent and for cancelling the bail that the respondent was implicated in the said case.
7. The present petition discloses no ground so as to cancel the bail. It is humbly submitted that the accused is strictly complying all the conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court and undertake that he will comply the same in its letter and spirit. The further Judicial Custody of the accused is not at all warranted as the final report has already been filed and there is no circumstances to cancel the bail already granted in favour of the accused. In that circumstances it is not a ground to cancel the bail already granted to the accused.
8. It is settled position of law that cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and was not to be likely resorted to. It is held that normally very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. The accused has not misused the liberty in any manner. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider
P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
X1, Victim SC No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court v. State of Kerala and Others
Violating Condition Imposed in Bail Order - Cancel Bail - Criminal activity violating condition/conditions imposed in the bail order, the same is a supervening circumstances to cancel the bail.
Bail may be cancelled if the accused violates conditions by engaging in further criminal activity, with the court needing to assess the seriousness and context of such violations.
Violation of bail conditions, misuse of liberty, and involvement in criminal activities during the bail period are grounds for cancellation of bail, as per Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
Violation of bail conditions, especially through further criminal activity, justifies cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Bail conditions must not include automatic cancellation upon subsequent offenses; cogent circumstances must be assessed for any cancellation.
Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of supervening circumstances; mere subsequent charges do not automatically justify cancellation if they do not affect the original trial.
The court ruled that mere registration of a subsequent offence does not justify automatic bail cancellation; a thorough inquiry into supervening circumstances is necessary.
Cancellation of bail justified for violating conditions by threatening complainant post-release, as evidenced by recorded statement and fresh FIR; distinct from bail grant, warranted on cogent ground....
(1) Mere violation of condition alone is not sufficient to cancel bail granted by court.(2) Stipulations contained in Section 437(5) and 439(2) of Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a substitute for preven....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.