High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-19Dismissed

Vijin Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-10-19
Court Decision / Holding: This petition stands dismissed. The High Court declined to revisit the Special Court’s cancellation of bail and upheld the bail order’s reversal, citing established principles and recent Supreme Court guidance on when bail can be cancelled.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vijin Kumar

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Naveen Radhakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Renjit George, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vijin Kumar, the sole accused in Crime No. 1909/2021 of Maranallor Police Station, challenges an order cancelling his bail. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arises from an order in Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 616/2022 and 1831/2021 of the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which granted bail with conditions including that the accused must appear before the Investigating Officer on each Tuesday and Friday between 9:00 and 10:00 AM for four months and that he shall not involve himself in any offense while on bail. The prosecution contends that the accused violated these conditions by failing to appear as directed and by involving himself in a separate offense under the NDPS Act (Section 20(b)(ii)(B)) and the Arms Act (Section 27) in Crime No. 3/2022. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that both trials are ongoing, and cancellation of bail would unjustly prejudice the accused and impede the progress of the trials; they sought to set aside the order so that bail could continue. The State countered that the petitioner showed disregard for court orders and engaged in similar criminal activity, justifying bail cancellation. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents including Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana (1995) and P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2022 SC 2138) to acknowledge that bail can be cancelled under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. for supervening circumstances or conduct adversely affecting a fair trial, noting the illustrative, not exhaustive, list of grounds. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, upholding the cancellation of bail and denying relief.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C.NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(B)NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 25Arms Act - Section 27Explosives Act, 1884 - Section 4IPC - Section 286IPC - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 365

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail can be cancelled under Cr.P.C. when supervening circumstances arise or the conduct of the accused post-grant makes a fair trial undesirable (Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349).
The grounds for cancellation of bail are illustrative and not exhaustive; higher courts may rely on broader considerations (P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2022 SC 2138).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since both trials are ongoing, cancelling bail would prejudicially affect the accused and the right to a fair trial. The bail conditions imposed by the Special Court were reasonable, and there was no demonstrated misuse of liberty beyond a single missed appearance; cancellation should be reconsidered to allow the accused to remain on bail until trial completion. They urged the High Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the cancellation order and restore bail, especially in light of the ongoing proceedings and the need to avoid disruption of the trial process.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that the accused showed flagrant disregard for court orders by not appearing as directed and by involving himself in new offenses while on bail. The prosecution argued that such conduct undermines the administration of justice and necessitates cancellation of bail to protect the fair trial process. Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, the State maintained that supervening circumstances and the accused’s conduct may justify revocation of bail under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana	1995 (1) SCC 349	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that bail can be cancelled on supervening circumstances or conduct that undermines a fair trial.
P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another	AIR 2022 SC 2138	Positive	Cited to illustrate circumstances under which bail can be cancelled and to emphasize that grounds are illustrative, not exhaustive.

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 Vijin Kumar v. State of Kerala 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 MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/27TH ASWINA, 1944 CRL.MC NO.6964 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1831/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:** VIJIN KUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT PUNARTHAM, MARANALLOOR, VADANOOR,THIRUVANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM P.O, PIN – 695512. BY ADV. NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031. (CRIME NO.1909 OF 2021 OF MARANALLOR POLICE STATION) BY ADV.SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: **Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022** 2 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated, this the 19[th] October, 2022** This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging order in Crl. M.P.No.616/2022 arising out of Crl.M.P.No. 1831/2022 in Crime No.1909/2021 of Maranallor Police Station. The petitioner is the sole accused in the above crime. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed a detailed report justifying cancellation of bail, as per the impugned order. 3. In this matter, the petitioner, who involved in the above crime was granted bail by the Special Court as per order in Crl.M.P. No.616/2022 by imposing conditions. One among the condition imposed in the bail order as could be seen from the impugned order is that ## **Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022** 3 _he shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Tuesdays and Fridays between 9 AM and 10 AM for a period of four months, after being released on bail and he shall not get involved in any offence while on bail_ . Since the petitioner violated the said order, prosecution filed petition to cancel the bail, highlighting that the petitioner failed to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Tuesdays and Fridays as directed by the bail order. It was pointed out by the prosecution before the Special Court that subsequently the petitioner got involved in another crime involving offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and under Section 27 of Arms Act, vide Crime No.3/2022 of Excise Range office, Kattakkada. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both cases' trial is going on and, therefore, the order cancelling bail may be set aside so that the petitioner can be 4 ## **Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022** released on bail. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has no respect to the orders passed by the court and he had disobeyed the direction of the Special Court while granting bail, not only by not appearing before the Investigating Officer as specifically directed, but also getting involved in another crime of similar nature. 6. While appreciating the contentions, the latest three bench decision of the Apex Court is required to be referred. In the latest decision of the Apex Court reported in [2022 KHC 6496], [AIR 2022 SC 2138] _**P. v. State of**_ _**Madhyapradesh and another,**_ the Apex Court illustrated the circumstances, when bail granted to the accused can be cancelled, under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C. as under: _As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once granted, the Court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen_ **Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022** 5 _or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial, (Refer 1995 (1) SCC 349 (Daulat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana) ). To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below: -_ _a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;_ _b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;_ _c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;_ _d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;_ _e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;_ _f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;_ **Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _g) If he is likely to flee from the country;_ _h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;_ _i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety._ _j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial._ _We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive._ 7. Circumstance (a), dealt by the Apex Court is misuse of the liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity and (h) is attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency. In this matter, circumstances (a) and (h) are established against the petitioner. In the decision, it has been held further that the list shown above are not exhaustive. 8. In this case, a report has been placed before this Court stating that the petitioner ## **Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022** 7 has involved in four crime viz.,(1)Crime No. 1675/21 U/s.286 IPC 7 Sec.4 of Explosive Act (2)Crime No.1909/2021 U/s.20(B)(II)B NDPS Act & 27 Arms Act (3)Neyyattinkara PS Crime No.2412/ 2021 U/s.143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 365 IPC (4)Excise Range Office, Kattakkada Crime No.03/2022 U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985. It is reported further that the petitioner has Rowdy History of the station as RHS No.65 also. Thus, it appears that for valid reasons, on finding violation of bail conditions, the Special Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner, who had involved in multiple crimes as stated above. Therefore, I am not inclined to revisit the order. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww 8 ## **Crl.M.C.No.6964 of 2022** ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6964/2022** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRIMINAL.M.P NO.616/2022 IN CRIMINAL.M.P. NO.1831/ 2021 OF THE HONBLE ADDTNL. SESSION JUDGE-I, THIRUVANTHAPURAM DATED 27.9.2022.