2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15365
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
HASHIQUE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4914/2024
Violation of bail conditions, especially involving threats to witnesses, justifies the cancellation of bail to ensure a fair trial.
Headnote:
[Bail] - [Cancellation of Bail] - [IPC Sections: 354(D)(1), 506; IT Act: Section 67B; POCSO Act: Sections 11(iv), 12; CrPC: Section 439] - [The court upheld the cancellation of bail based on the accused's violation of bail conditions, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the protection of victims from intimidation.]
Fact of the Case:
The accused challenged the cancellation of his bail after allegations arose that he violated bail conditions by threatening the victim and her family to withdraw the case against him.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of bail was justified based on the accused's alleged violations of bail conditions and subsequent criminal activity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that violation of bail conditions, particularly involving threats to witnesses, constitutes a valid ground for bail cancellation under Section 439(2) of the CrPC.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the accused was directed to surrender to the Special Court.
ORDERThis petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.1000/2023 of Parappanangadi Police Station, Malappuram, challenging order in Crl.M.P.No.84/2024 in S.C.No.102/2024 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of Offences Against Women and Children, Parappanangadi, to set aside Annexure-7 order in the above case.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused Annexures-7 order.
3.In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 (D)(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (` IPC ’ for short) and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act , 2000 (`I.T Act’ for short) read with 12 Crl.M.C.No.4914/ 2024-D 3 and 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (`POCSO Act’ for short). In this matter, the accused was granted bail as per order in Crl.M.P.No.2002/2023 dated 27.10.2023 by imposing conditions as under:
“1. The petitioner/accused shall execute bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.
2. The petitioner/accused shall report before the Investigating Officer on all Thursday between 9.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m, till filing of the Final Report/Charge Sheet.
3.The petitioner/accused shall surrender his passport before court or file affidavit, if he has no Passport.
4.The petitioner/accused shall not tamper with evidence, or influence or intimidate victim or any other witnesses.
5.The petitioner/accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
Crl.M.C.No.4914/ 2024-D 4
6.The petitioner/accused shall not contact or attempt to contact the victim in any manner.
7.The petitioner/accused shall not involve in any similar offence while on bail.
8.The petitioner/accused shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Court.
9.The petitioner/accused shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would result in cancellation of the bail suo-motu or on application by the respondent."
4.While the petitioner has been continuing on bail in view of the above order, the mother of the victim gave a statement alleging that the accused, in violation of the bail conditions, sent messages to the defacto complainant and threatened the victim, her mother and close relatives pressurising them to withdraw the case against him. Accordingly, Crime No.20/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 506(1) of IPC and Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act was registered on 05.01.2024. At this juncture, Crl.M.C.No.4914/ 2024-D 5 the learned Public Prosecutor filed Crl.M.P.No.84/2024 to cancel the bail. The learned Special Judge considered the plea of the prosecution after considering the objection raised by the petitioner stating that he was implicated in a subsequent crime, without any materials. Thereafter, negating the objection, the learned Special Judge allowed the petition and thereby his bail was cancelled.
5.While assailing the above order of cancellation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and Crime No.20/2024 was registered without any substance, so as to implicate the petitioner in another crime with a view to cancel the bail. He also would submit that the learned Special Judge cancelled the bail even without going through the records in Crime No.20/20 to find out whether the allegations are made out, prima facie.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations in the second crime are well made out and as part of Crl.M.C.No.4914/ 2024-D 6 investigation, the learned Public Prosecutor collected the messages sent by the accused thereby threatening the victim, her mother and relatives to pressurise them to withdraw from Crime No.1000/2023. Therefore, cancellation of bail by the trial c
Click Here to Read the rest of this document