Cancellation of bail requires compelling reasons, especially if a significant time lapse exists between alleged offences.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2068/2017 of Alappuzha North Police Station. This Crl.M.C is filed challenging Annexure A3 order passed by the learned Session Judge, Alappuzha, by which the bail already granted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he violated the conditions of the bail.

2. The facts which lead to the filing of this Crl.M.C are as follows:

Crime No.2068/2017 was registered against the petitioner in respect of an incident that occurred on 16/11/2017, and the offences alleged against the petitioner were under Sections 447, 341, 324 and 308, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner was arrested in connection with the same on 26/06/2018, and later on 19/07/2018, he was granted bail as per Annexure A1 order. The aforesaid bail was granted subject to certain conditions, and one of the conditions was that he should not indulge in any other offences while on bail.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner got involved in another offence, Crime No.340/2022, alleging offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code . Thereafter, the Station House Officer, Alappuzha, North Police Station, submitted Crl. M.P.No.1390/2022, before the learned Sessions Judge seeking cancellation of the bail already granted in Crime No.2068/2017 of Alappuzha North Police Station. The reason for seeking cancellation was that he had violated the condition imposed in Annexure A1 bail application to the effect that he shall not indulge in any other offences while on bail.

4. The learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail after hearing the petitioner, as per Annexure A3 and this Crl.M.C is filed challenging the same.

5. Heard Smt.Sujini.S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Sreeja.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

6. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of cancellation of bail is not legally sustainable. It is pointed out that the prosecution has no case that the subsequent offence has any connection with the earlier offence, and it would affect the fair trial of the said case. The long time gap between the earlier crime and the subsequent crime in which he was involved was also raised as one of the grounds supporting the prayer to set aside the Annexure A3 order. It is also contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the subsequent case, and hence indulgence was sought.

7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid contention. It is pointed out that, apart from these two cases, the petitioner is involved in two other cases which are allegedly committed by him in the years 2014 and 2016. The offences alleged against the petitioner in respect of the crime registered in the year 2014 were under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code , whereas in the Crime of the year 2016, the offence alleged was 308 of the . Besides the same, as against the petitioner, proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C has already been initiated, and his name is included in the 'Rowdy list'.

8. After considering all the relevant aspects, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the records that the initial crime was registered in respect of an incident that occurred on 16/11/2017, and the petitioner was released on bail on 19/07/2018. The subsequent crime occurred on 29/03/2022 after a gap of almost four years. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution also has no case that the second offence was committed to intimidate any of the witnesses in the earlier crime, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the fair trial in Crime No.2068/2017 of Alappuzha, North Police Station could be affected consequent to the commission of the crime of the year 2022. Moreover, it is also pointed out that the investigation was completed in both cases, final r