SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
ANEESH.A.D. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 4683 OF 2021 | CRIME NO.2406/2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SMT.M.BINDUDAS, SRI.K.C.HARISH
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The court clarified that prior orders will not impede future bail applications if the situation changes.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the implications of granting anticipatory bail under IPC sections 341, 294(b), 354

(D), 506(ii), and 354. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order cancelling his pre-arrest bail due to subsequent charges, was allowed to renew his bail application without restriction. The Court reaffirmed the significance of procedural safeguards concerning bail applications.

Result: The petition is disposed of with the stated clarification.

Table of Content
1. the implications of cancellative orders on bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C No. 654 of 2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, arising out of the Crime No. 2406 of 2020 of Nedumangad police station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 , 294(b), 354(D), 506(ii)

and 354 of the IPC .

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A6 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cancelling pre-arrest bail granted, on the ground that two other cases were registered against the petitoner while he was on bail.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the crime in which he was granted anticipatory bail was already referred by the police. However, it appears that thereafter further investigation was conducted and the police filed a charge sheet against him, and said case is now pending as C.C No. 654 of 2020. A report was called for from the learned Magistrate about the present status of C.C No. 654 of 2020, and as per report dated 05.11.2025, the learned Magistrate reported that the said case is still pending and also that though summons was issued repeatedly to the petitoner, he did not appear before the learned Magistrate and not moved for bail.

In the above circumstances, this Crl.M.C is disposed of with a clarification that in case the petitioner moves a bail application before the learned Magistrate, Annexure A6 will not stand in the way of granting bail.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top