An accused's bail cannot be cancelled without sufficient proof of violation of conditions.

ORDER

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1030 of

2023 of Nedumkandam Police Station. He filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, praying for setting aside Annexure A5 order of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, cancelling his bail. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 449 , 324, 326, 307, 436 and

427 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution case is that, on 08.11.2023, at about 23:30 hours, the accused trespassed into the parental house of his wife and attempted to murder his wife and her father. In the incident, his wife and her father sustained serious injuries and his father-in-law succumbed to injuries on 09.11.2023. As per Annexure A1 order dated 25.11.2024, this Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. In the said bail order, this Court made clear that, in case the petitioner violates the bail conditions, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. Alleging that the petitioner violated the bail conditions, the prosecution filed Annexure A3 before the learned Sessions Judge, praying for cancelling petitioner’s bail on the ground that he has violated two conditions in Annexure A1 bail order. One ground is that, he was subsequently involved in two other criminal cases and the other violation is that, he entered the limits of Nedumkandam Police Station. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge passed Annexure A5 order, cancelling the petitioner’s bail.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was falsely implicated in two NDPS cases, subsequent to the bail order. Further, according to the learned Counsel, his wife is not residing within the limits of Nedumkandam Police Station and as such, there is no violation of the bail condition that he shall not enter the police station limits of his wife.

4. The petition is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a specific contention that, since November, 2023, the wife of the petitioner was not residing within the limits of Nedumkandam Police Station and that, on 25.02.2025, on the date of the alleged violation of bail condition, she was not residing within the limits of Nedumkandam Police Station, a report was called for from the SHO, Nedumkandam Police Station. As per the report submitted by the SHO, Nedumkandam Police Station, dated 29.01.2026, since 09.11.2023, the wife of the petitioner is residing within the limits of Idukki district and also that, on 25.02.2025, she was not residing within the limits of Nedumkandam Police Station. Since, condition No.(vi) in Annexure A1 bail order was not to enter the police station limits of his wife, and it is revealed that the wife of the petitioner was not residing within the limits of Nedumkandam Police Station on the alleged date of violation, it is to be held that the petitioner has not violated condition No.(vi) of Annexure A1 bail order.

6. It is true that, the petitioner was involved in two other cases while he was on bail. They are Crime No.233 of 2025 of Nedumkandam Police Station, under Section 20(b)II(A) and Crime No.19 of 2025 of Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Idukki, under Section

20(b)II(B) of the NDPS Act .

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the allegation in the above crimes is that, he was found in possession of Ganja, in small quantity in Crime No.233 of 2025 and intermediate quantity in Crime No.19 of 2025. Further, according to the Counsel, these crimes have nothing to do with the case in which he was released on bail.

8. It is true that, in the pre