Point of Law: Section 437 of Cr.P.C provides for grant of bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offence when produced before a court other than High Court or Court of Sessions.

ORDER :

Should the bail granted in one crime be cancelled merely because the accused had, in alleged violation of the conditions of bail, got himself entangled in a subsequent crime? The above question arises for resolution in the instant case.

2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No.1104 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad, which arises from Crime No.31 of 2022 of Guruvayoor Police Station, Thrissur (hereafter referred to as the ‘first crime’). The prosecution alleges that on 12.01.2022, petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant in front of a temple at Guruvayoor and caused grievous hurt and also stole her mobile phone and thus committed the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 394 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After petitioner was taken into custody on 23.05.2022, he was granted bail on 02.06.2022. One of the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate, while granting bail was that petitioner should not involve in any other crime while on bail. Later, petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.1072/2022 of Thrissur Town West Police Station (hereafter referred to as the ‘second crime’) alleging offences punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 308, 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations in the second crime include displaying his nudity before a lady and brandishing a chopper in an attempt to commit culpable homicide and shouting obscene words on a public road. Petitioner has been granted bail in the second crime also.

4. In the meantime, a petition was filed through the Prosecutor to cancel the bail granted in the first crime due to his involvement in the second crime in violation of the conditions of bail. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail due to his involvement in the subsequent crime.

5. Adv. Ramakrishnan M.N. and Adv. Rajith appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the impugned order cancelling bail is erroneous since the learned Magistrate failed to consider the absence of any overwhelming circumstance to cancel the bail, as held in various decisions of the Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel, the second crime was registered without any basis and is an instance of false implication, solely to attempt cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

6. Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the condition imposed while granting bail that the petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail, ought to be given the sanctity it deserves. It was further argued that if petitioner's involvement in the second crime is ignored, it would pave the way for the condition to become redundant. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the subsequent offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is a serious offence and therefore the accused deserves no leniency.

7. Section 437 of Cr.P.C provides for grant of bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offence when produced before a court other than the High Court or Court of Sessions. The said statutory provision also confers power upon the court to impose conditions. In the exercise of such a power, the learned Magistrate while granting bail imposed a condition that 'petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail'. It is pertinent to note that final report has been filed in the said case and the case is now pending as C.C. No.1104 of 2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad. Though petitioner was arrested on 07.11.2022 for the second crime, he was granted regular bail for the said crime on 14.12.2022.

8. The bail granted to the petitioner in the first crime was cancelled by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order after coming to the conclusion that the accused had misused his liberty by indulging in another criminal activity and had therefore violated the bail conditions.

9. Bail once granted ought not to be ca