Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
Pramod Prasannan S/o Prasannan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A5 order by which the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta cancelled the bail granted to him in S.C. No.157 of 2022, which originated from Crime No.1016 of 2021 registered at the Pulikeezhu Police Station for offences under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 452, 427, 506, 294(b), and 212 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 20 r/w 27 of the Arms Act. The crime was registered alleging that, on 02.12.2021, the accused attacked and stabbed Sandeep, a CPI(M) activist, resulting in his death. The petitioner who was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the crime was arrested on 03.12.2021 and granted bail as per Annexure A1 order dated 22.08.2024. While granting bail to the petitioner, the High Court imposed various conditions, including the condition that he shall not involve in any other crime while on bail and added a rider that if the conditions are violated, the investigating officer can file an application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court. Sometime later, the investigating officer filed an application seeking cancellation of petitioner's bail alleging that he had consciously violated the bail
Bail can only be cancelled for cogent reasons after a preliminary inquiry into allegations of misconduct, ensuring the protection of justice and witness safety.
Bail once granted can only be revoked for cogent reasons and not merely on additional allegations without inquiry.
Bail cancellation requires cogent reasons; mere involvement in a subsequent crime does not justify cancellation without evidence of interference with justice.
Cancellations of bail require very strong and cogent reasons, especially when considering incidents that occurred after bail was granted; mere allegations are insufficient without substantial proof.
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 requires cogent evidence of supervening circumstances; mere subsequent charges do not automatically justify cancellation if they do not affect the original trial.
Bail once granted should not be cancelled without cogent reasons, and the court must consider supervening circumstances carefully.
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 releas....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
