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.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This is an application filed by the learned Public Prosecutor representing State of Kerala, under Section 439(2) r/w 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short) to cancel the bail granted to the 3^rd accused, who is the respondent herein, on the allegation that he had violated the bail condition imposed by this Court while granting bail as per order dated 28.12.2021 in B.A.No.9743 of 2021 in Crime No.1350 of 2021 of Karunagappally Police Station.

2. The specific case put up by the prosecution is that even though this Court granted bail to the respondent herein by imposing certain conditions and condition No.6 is to the effect that “the respondent herein shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted”, in gross violation of the said condition, the respondent herein involved in Crime No.1381 of 2023 of Karunagappally Police Station, where the accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii), 120-B, 307 r/w 307 r/w 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (`IPC’ for short) as well as Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . Thus pointing out involvement of the respondent herein in Crime No.1381/2023 by violating condition No.6 in Annexure A1 order granting bail to the respondent herein, cancellation of bail in Crime No.1350 of 2021 of Karunagappally Police Station is being pressed into.

3. Respondent in this petition filed objection. The respondent admitted that he also got arrayed as 4^th accused in a subsequent crime, but there was no willful violation of the bail conditions. It is also pointed out that mere violation of any of the conditions of the bail order alone is not sufficient to cancel the bail granted by this Court and in this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent gave emphasis to the decision of this Court reported in [2022 (2) KLD 447] , Godson & another v. State of Kerala

4. While addressing the rival contentions, in Crime No.1350/200 of Karunagappilly Police Station, the petitioner/respondent herein got arrayed as the 3^rd accused where the prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 143 , 144, 147, 341, 324, 307 r/w 149 and 34 of IPC and the allegation therein was that on 12.10.2021, at about 8.30 p.m the accused herein formed into an unlawful assembly with the knowledge that they are all members of the said assembly with an intention to do away one Mr.Hafis, due to previous animosity. Thereafter, in prosecution of such common intention they attacked the above said Hafis and his friends Bilal and Afsal. But they survived.

5. It is true that while granting bail as per Annexure-A1 order produced by the prosecution, condition No.6 was imposed with a view to restrain involvement of the respondent herein in further crimes with further clause that if any such involvement reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same should be a reason to cancel the bail granted. While enjoying the benefit of bail, the respondent herein involved in Crime No.1381/2023 arose out of occurrence on 29.08.2023.

6. In Crime No.1381/2023, as already observed, serious offences are alleged to be committed by the accused and the prosecution allegation is that at abut 2.30 dawn (after midnight), accused 1 to 6 formed into unlawful assembly with knowledge that they are all members of the said assembly after hatching conspiracy with intention to do away one Ramraj reached near the house of Ramraj. Thereafter the 3^rd accused used abused the above said Ramraj and caused injury on his hand by using a