The court underscored the necessity of conducting a summary inquiry prior to cancellation of bail, distinguishing between the standards for granting and canceling bail.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 3834/2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara (‘Trial Court’, for short), which has originated from Crime No. 243/2022 registered by the Naruvamoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act .

2. By Annexure II order, the Trial Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No. (iii), the petitioner was directed not to commit a similar offence or be involved in any other offences during the bail period. Alleging that the petitioner got himself involved in Crime No. 06/2024 registered by the Naruvamoodu Police Station for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act , the Investigating Officer in the first crime filed an application to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner in the first crime. By the impugned Annexure VI order, the Trial Court cancelled the first order on the ground that the petitioner has got involved in another crime despite the specific directions in the first order. The impugned order is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Trial Court has passed the impugned Annexure VI order without conducting a summary enquiry, which is mandatory in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana [ (1995) 1 SCC 349 ] and Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ([(2018)

3 SCC 22].

5. This Court in Godson v. State of Kerala (2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1238) succinctly held that, there is a difference between the yardsticks to be followed for the cancellation of bail and against the appeal granting bail. The grounds for the cancellation of bail are interference or attempt interference with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice, or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner.

6. Basically, it is well settled that the accused should have misused the liberty that was granted to him by getting himself involved in post bail misconduct.

7. In Jamsheer Ali vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC

332], this Court has held that, the bail court should conduct an enquiry with available materials on record in the subsequent crime and prima facie conclude that the accused person is actively involved in the second crime, only after conducting the summary enquiry, the bail order granted in favour of the accused has to be cancelled.

8. I have carefully gone through the findings in Annexure VI order. Other than for merely holding that the Trial Court is satisfied that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the offences alleged against him, there is no specific finding giving reasons for the cancellation of the bail order. This, according to me, is in violation of the principles laid down in Jamsheer Ali’s case (supra). Thus, I am convinced and satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside Annexure VI order and directing the Trial Court to consider the cancellation of the bail application strictly in accordance with the law laid down in Jamsheer Ali‘s case (supra) and come to a conclusion and ta