Bail once granted can only be revoked for cogent reasons and not merely on additional allegations without inquiry.

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A2 order of the Sessions Court, Thalassery cancelling his bail granted in Crime No.647 of 2024 registered at the Kuthuparamba Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 140 (2), 310(2), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351 and 324(5) of the B NS , 2023. Investigation of the crime was later transferred to the Crime ranch and renumbered as 1499/2024. The petitioner, who was arrayed as the 16^th accused in the crime, was granted bail as per Annexure-A4 order dated 30.01.2025. While granting bail to the petitioner, the Sessions Court imposed various conditions, including the condition that he shall not involve in any crime during the bail period. The investigating officer later filed an application seeking cancellation of petitioner's bail, alleging that he had violated the bail condition by getting arraigned as the accused in Crime No.184 of 2025 of the Koipuram Police Station registered for the offences under Section 3 r/w 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 20(b)(ii) A of the NDPS Act . The prayer for cancellation was stoutly opposed by contending that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the second crime and mere registration of the FIR cannot lead to cancellation of the bail granted. The learned Sessions Judge cancelled petitioner's bail by the impugned Annexure 2 order.

Hence, this Crl.M.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below committed gross illegality in mechanically cancelling petitioner's bail on the premise that he had violated the bail condition by getting arraigned as accused in another crime. It is submitted that the second crime is registered on the allegation that in connection with the investigation of Crime No.1499 of 2024 of Crime B ranch, Wayanad, search was conducted in the petitioner's house on 19.02.2025. During the search, a wooden cutter chain, five knives, an axe, air pistol and 2.9 grams of ganja were seized. The petitioner was granted bail in the second crime as per Annexure A6 order dated 11.03.2025, finding the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) to be bailable and the prosecution to have failed in clarifying whether licence was required to possess the weapons seized from the petitioner's house. Learned counsel contended that bail once granted cannot be cancelled without considering whether any supervening circumstances had rendered continuation of the bail no longer conducive to fair trial. Therefore, the power to cancel bail can be exercised only when the court is convinced of an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or the trial of the case. To buttress the argument, reliance is placed on the decision inRenjith v. State of Kerala [2023(2) KHC 310] .

3.Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the court having granted bail in a case alleging commission of heinous offences, by imposing conditions, the petitioner should have been extra cautious in his conduct while on bail. Instead, he got arraigned in another serious crime, by concealing weapons and ganja in his house. According to the Public Prosecutor, by his subsequent act the petitioner has demonstrated that he has scant respect for the order of court and the rule of law. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court In P v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [2022 KHC 6496] , it is contended that, misuse of liberty, by violating bail conditions, is by itself, a ground for cancellation of bail. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in a number of crimes and the society at large will be benefited by his incarceration.

4. The legal position that, consideration for grant of bail and its cancellation are entirely different, and bail once granted can be c