Violation of bail conditions can justify cancellation of bail, emphasizing the need for cogent circumstances to support such a decision.

ORDER

Dated this the 17 th day of July, 2024

The sole accused in SC No.1208/2023 on the files of Special Court for the trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act'), Chengannur has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C.) challenging Annexure-A5 order in

Crl.M.P.No.146/2024 dated 24.02.2024 whereby the learned Special Judge cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner finding that he had violated the conditions of the bail order subsequently. The specific allegation is that the accused repeatedly followed the victim directly with sexual intent, caused fear to her and attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations are false and the repeated sexual overtures by attempting to contact the victim at the instance of the petitioner now alleged as the ground for cancelling the bail are false. According to him, the petitioner attempted to commit suicide as evident from Annexure-A2, Emergency Department of OP Ticket issued from Government T.D. Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha dated 16.01.2024 and the allegations led to cancellation of the bail has been raised after the said attempt. Highlighting that the petitioner did not violate the condition of the previous bail order, the learned counsel pressed for setting aside Annexure-A5 order and to allow the petitioner continue on bail, already granted.

4. Strongly opposing interference in Annexure-A5 order, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the petitioner was released on bail by imposing condition that he did not disturb the victim in any manner, the petitioner violated the condition and repeatedly disturbed the victim with sexual intent and the same led to cancellation of his bail. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that petitioner is a person having involvement in gruesome crimes and he has involvement in nine other crimes as stated as under:

“1. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr.166/13 U/s 506 (ii), 294 (b), 323, 324 and 34 IPC.

2. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr.228/13 U/s 323 and 324 IPC.

3. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr.135/14 U/s 324 IPC.

4. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr.282/15 U/s 143, 147,148,149, 294 (b), 323, 324 & 308 IPC.

5. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr

.297/15 U/s 341,323, 324, 308 & 34 IPC.

6. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr. 443/21 U/s 294 (b), 341 & 323 IPC.

7. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr. 146/22 U/s 354, 294 (b), 323, 324 & 506 IPC.

8. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr. 555/23 U/s 468 & 471 IPC.

9. Vallikkunnam P .S. Cr. 58/24 U/s 341, 354 D (1)(i) & 506 IPC & Sec 11 (IV) r/w 12 of POCSO Act.”

5. On scrutiny of Annexure-A5 order, it is clear that the petitioner was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha vide order in Crl.M.P.No.5905/2023 by imposing conditions, and one among the conditions is that he should not make any attempt either directly or through any person or means, to communicate with the victim or her parents in any manner. Subsequently in violation of the said condition the accused followed the victim repeatedly and disturbed her with sexual intent and caused fear on her. On finding that the said allegations substantiated prima facie , the learned Special Judge cancelled the bail holding that the petitioner violated the bail conditions so as to go for the harsh order of cancellation of bail.

6. In so far as cancellation of bail is concerned, the same is a harsh order. In the decision reported in Sobhin Sunny v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC Online 408] , this Court considered the parameters which would warrant cancellation of bail and held as under:

“8. In so far as the legal question as to whether what are the contingencies under which bail can be cancelled the law is well settled. In the decision reported in [2022

(7) KHC 109 : 2022 KHC OnLine 883 : 2022(6) KLT OnLine 1129], Sreeja Mannangath v. State of Kerala