The misuse of bail conditions by engaging in new crimes can justify the cancellation of bail.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.2524 of

2021 registered by the Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 144, 147, 148, 324 and 332 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act .

2. By the order dated 09.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.261 of

2022 of the Court of Session, Kottayam, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No. (6) in the said order, the petitioner was directed not to get involved in any other crime while on bail. Alleging that the petitioner got involved in Crime No.213 of 2025 registered by the very same police station, the Investigating Officer in the first crime filed an application before the Court of Session, Kottayam to cancel the bail granted in Crime No.2524 of 2021. By the impugned Annexure A1, the learned Sessions Judge, following the principles laid down in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [2022 KHC 6496] came to the conclusion that the petitioner has misused his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activities. Consequently, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. It is assailing the said order that the present Crl.M.C. is filed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Investigating Officer has filed a report, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The petitioner is also an accused in Crime Nos.2106 of 2019, 2276 of 2019, 1270 of 2020, 1316 of 2022, 1319 of 2022, 1291 of 2023 and 1515 of 2024. Therefore, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of committing him similar offences. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

5. By the order dated 09.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.261 of

2022, the learned Sessions Judge had specifically imposed a condition on the petitioner that he should not get involved in any other offence, while he is on bail. Going by the statement filed by the Investigating Officer, it is seen that in 2022 itself, the petitioner has got involved in two other crimes and in 2024 he has got involved in one other crime, i.e., Crime No.1515 of 2024. In fact, the Investigating Officer had filed the application to cancel the bail on the ground that the petitioner has got involved in a totally different crime, i.e., Crime No.213 of 2025, which is in addition to other three crimes committed in the years 2022 and 2024. Thus, it is quite evident that the petitioner is a history sheeter.

6. In P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if an accused has misused his liberty by indulging in a subsequent crime, his bail can be cancelled. The above principle has been laid down following the principles in Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana [1995 KHC 3286] . This Court in Jamsheer Ali vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 332] has held that an order of bail can be cancelled subject to the court conducting a summary enquiry and coming to the conclusion that the accused has misused his liberty.

In the case at hand, as already stated above, in addition to Crime No.213 of 2025 registered by the very same police station, the petitioner is also involved in three other crimes after 2022 and there are a total of nine cases registered against him. Thus, I am of the definite view that the petitioner has misused his liberty by indulging in other criminal activities while the bail order was in force. Hence, I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in Annexure A1 order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Th