High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-11-23Bail cancellation order set aside; Crl.M.C. all...

Abhilash v. State of Kerala (CRL.MC No. 7059 of 2022)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Kauser Edappagath
Judgment Date: 2022-11-23
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned order cancelling bail is set aside; the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The bail previously granted on 17.08.2021 continues, and observation made in this order about the subsequent crime will not affect the investigation in Crime No.500/2022.
Final Disposition: Bail cancellation order set aside; Crl.M.C. allowed; bail granted earlier remains in force.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abhilash

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Basil Chandy Vavachan
• Charutha Bhaiju
• Georgie Simon Chandhana Bhaiju
• Basil Sajan Basil
• Scaria

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.G. Manu, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case, considers cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. The sole accused, Abhilash, faced offences under IPC Sections 363, 354, and 354A(1)(i) and POCSO Act Sections 8 read with 7 and 12 read with 11(i)(iv)(vi) in Chalakudy Police Station Crime No.460/2021. He was granted bail by the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur on 17.08.2021, with a condition prohibiting involvement in other offences. The prosecution moved to cancel bail after a new case, Crime No.500/2022, under IPC Section 324, was registered against him for an alleged assault, and the court below cancelled the bail as per Annexure-1. The petitioner seeks to quash that cancellation. The court noted that the subsequent crime is a baillable offence under investigation and not yet finalised, and that the victim in Crime No.500/2022 is not the same as in the original case. It relied on decisions including Godson v. State of Kerala and Rajasthan v. Mubin to emphasize that mere registration of a subsequent crime cannot alone justify bail cancellation, unless it interferes with a fair trial. The High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, allowing the Crl.M.C., with a caveat that observations regarding the subsequent crime will not affect the ongoing investigation in Crime No.500/2022.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.Section 363 IPCSection 354 IPCSection 354A(1)(i) IPCSection 8 r/w 7 r/w 12 r/w 11(i)(iv)(vi) POCSO ActSection 324 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that cancellation of bail on mere registration of a subsequent offence is unwarranted, since the said offence (Code 324 IPC) is baillable and the investigation is ongoing. It contends the new crime should not automatically affect the trial in Crime No.460/2021, and relies on the principle that bail should not be cancelled unless the subsequent offence interferes with a fair trial, as discussed in Godson v. State of Kerala and other authorities. The defence argues that the bail condition not to commit another offence should be maintained unless there is clear demonstrated interference with the ongoing trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the registration of a subsequent crime against the accused raises a legitimate concern regarding his conduct and the maintenance of fair trial, justifying cancellation of bail. Prosecution emphasizes risk of interference with witnesses and the trial, asserting that the mere fact of a new FIR should not be sufficient; however, the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process is stressed.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Godson v. State of Kerala	2022 Live Law Kerala 425=2022 (4) KLJ 150	Positive	Court relied on Godson to hold that mere registration of a subsequent crime cannot by itself justify cancellation of bail; interference with a fair trial must be shown.
State of Rajasthan v. Mubin and Others	2011 Crl. Law Journal 3850	Positive	Cited to support that mere lodging of an FIR is not equivalent to committing an offence and that bail cancellation cannot be based solely on the existence of a subsequent crime.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abhilash v. State of Kerala (CRL.MC No. 7059 of 2022) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND** **AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** **CRIMINAL M.P NO. 1544/2022 IN SC 960/2021 OF HONOURABLE COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR CRIME NO.460/2021 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **ABHILASH AGED 32 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, MALANTHRA HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA, MANIYAMKAVU DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680682** **BY ADVS. BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN CHARUTHA BHAIJU GEORGIE SIMON CHANDHANA BHAIJU BASIL SAJAN BASIL SCARIA** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.P.P.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** **==> picture [19 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** ## **O R D E R** Annexure-1 order cancelling the bail of the petitioner invoking Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C is under challenge in this Crl.M.C. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.460 of 2021 of Chalakudy Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 363, 354 & 354A(1)(i) of IPC and Section 8 r/w 7 and 12 r/w 11(i)(iv)(vi) of the POCSO Act. 3. The petitioner was granted bail by the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur (for short 'the court below') as per the order in Crl.M.P.No.1696 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021. One of the conditions for bail (condition No.4) is that “the petitioner will not get involved in any other offence while on bail'”. 4. The prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.1544 of ## **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 2022 before the court below for cancellation of bail alleging that after Annexure-2 order, the petitioner got involved in a crime alleging offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The court below after hearing both sides, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner vide Annexure-2 order as per Annexure-1 order. The said order is under challenge in this Crl.M.C. 5. I have heard Shri.Basil Chandy Vavachan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The bail was granted to the petitioner by the court below on 17.08.2021. Thereafter, Crime No.500 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner by Chalakudy Police. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The allegation in the said case is that on 02.05.2022 at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner herein attacked ## **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the _de facto_ complainant therein at the auto stand in front of the KSRTC Bus Station at Chalakudy and hit on his forehead with a paint tin and voluntarily caused hurt to him. 7. The victim in Crime No.500 of 2022 is not a victim in this case. The offence involved in Crime No.500 of 2022 is a bailable one. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is on bail in the said crime. The learned counsel further submitted that the said crime is still under investigation and the final report has not been filed. 8. A Single Bench of this Court recently in **Godson v. State of Kerala** [2022 Live Law Kerala 425=2022 (4) KLJ 150] has held that mere registration of a crime against the petitioner cannot be a reason to cancel the bail, unless it is shown that the involvement of the accused in the subsequent crime is ## **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** ..5.. affecting the trial of earlier case. It is further held that one of the crucial aspects relevant for consideration of an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner got involved in subsequent crime is whether the subsequent crime interferes with the conduct of a fair trial of the case in which he is involved. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in State of **Rajasthan v. Mubin and Others** [2011 Crl. Law Journal 3850] has held that mere lodging of FIR does not amount to commission of an offence and it is only an accusation against the accused and that an accused can be said to have committed an offence only when a Court, after considering the material before it and hearing the parties, forms an opinion to that effect, at the time of framing of charge. It was further held that the mere allegation of the involvement of the accused in the subsequent crime, cannot by itself be a reason ## **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** ..6.. for the cancellation of the bail. 10. As stated already, the subsequent crime is one involving an offence under Section 324 of IPC. Since the offence is a bailable one, the accused is on bail. There is no case for the prosecution that the involvement of the petitioner in the said crime in any way interferes with the investigation of the crime in which he was granted bail. That apart, the said crime is only under investigation. The investigation has not been finalized to conclude whether the allegation in the said crime is true or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner made available a copy of the accident register-cum-wound certificate of the _de facto_ complainant in Crime No.500 of 2022. The reason for the injury shown is fall from bike. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any justifiable reason to sustain the impugned order ## **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** cancelling the bail. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order will not affect the investigation in Crime No.500 of 2022 of Chalakudy Police Station. **==> picture [107 x 50] intentionally omitted <==** Sd/- **DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE** AS **CRL.MC NO. 7059 OF 2022** ..8.. ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7059/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** ## **ANNEXURE-1** **THE ORIGINAL OF ORDER DATED 06-09-2022 IN CRIMINAL M.P NO. 1544/2022 IN SC 960/2021 OF HONOURABLE COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR** **ANNEXURE-2 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/08/2021 IN CRL M.P 1696/2021 OF HONORABLE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR IN CRIME NO. 460/2021 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION** **ANNEXURE-3 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 500/2022 OF POLICE STATION, CHALAKUDY**