This is a Rent Control Revision Petition (R.C.Rev. No. 31 of 2022) filed in the Kerala High Court by the landlord, Sarojam, challenging the order dated 28.10.2021 in RCA No.18 of 2019, which affirmed the Rent Controller’s 4.6.2019 order in RC(OP) No.1 of 2016, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide need, and intentional destruction of the building. The respondent-tenant contended maintainability, and lack of suitable accommodation in the area, claiming hardship if evicted. The Rent Controller found no bonafide ground and refused eviction, while the Appellate Authority upheld personal necessity but dismissed eviction by invoking the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, requiring the tenant to establish non-availability of a suitable building and livelihood dependence on the petition schedule building. The landlord argued that the tenant did not press the second proviso with an Advocate Commissioner, shifting the burden to rebut. The respondents contended that the tenant's pleadings, chief affidavit, cross-examinations, and evidence showed non-availability of a suitable building and livelihood dependence. The High Court, after evaluating the evidence, held that the tenant discharged the second proviso’s burden and that the landlord failed to rebut it. The revision petition is dismissed, with no interference in the Appellate Authority’s application of the proviso.”
The petitioner, Arshad K.K., is the accused in Crime No.550/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, charged under IPC sections 392 (robbery), 302 (murder), and 201 (destruction of evidence). He moved the High Court under Section 439 CrPC for bail, arguing prolonged judicial custody violates his right to life under Article 21 and that inquiry is complete with final report; the case has been committed to the Court of Session (SC No.222/2023). The defense stressed the presumption of innocence, lack of necessity for continued detention since the investigation is over, and that he is the family’s sole breadwinner. The State contended the murder is brutal, evidenced by 17 ante-mortem injuries, and that bail would risk tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses. The court reviewed established bail principles, citing Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Mahipal, and Ash Mohammad to emphasize that bail is not automatic and must be weighed against the gravity of the offence, risk to witnesses, and possibility of repeated offences. It noted the severity and premeditation, the concealment of the body, and the potential for societal harm. Ultimately, the High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail and dismissed the application, upholding the state’s contention that release would adversely affect society.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC concerns quashing of proceedings in SC 1261/2019 arising from Crime No.238/2018 of Ayiroor Police Station. The petitioners—five accused—face offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 308, read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the victim and used filthy language. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably, supported by the victim’s affidavit, and seeks quashing of the ongoing prosecution. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement but concedes the matter is settled. The court examines the settled law, citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, and the decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to delineate the scope of CrPC 482 powers to quash non-compoundable offences in private settlements. It concludes the dispute is private, the settlement is valid, and quashing is proper without undermining public interest. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and all further proceedings in SC 1261/2019 are quashed.
Shafiq Alunkal v. The District Collector, Kozhikode and Others is an intra-court appeal challenging Exhibit P3, an order of the District Collector under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 directing demolition of a check dam on the appellant’s land that blocks a stream passing through his property. The writ petition (WP(C) 3250 of 2022) sought certiorari to quash the Exhibit P3 order and, in the alternative, mandamus to direct reconsideration after hearing stakeholders, basing its challenge on public access rights and the claim that the structure was meant to facilitate free water flow rather than obstruct it. The appellant argued that the term “thadayana” denotes a check dam and that the road-like structure would not impede the natural watercourse; pipelines laid prior to tiling were intended to keep passage open, and the Grama Panchayat did not oppose the project. He further contended that the District Collector lacks independent power under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and that demolition would cause public hardship. The learned Single Judge relied on the State’s ownership of watercourses and the public trust doctrine, citing Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins and Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala. The Division Bench upheld this approach, holding the watercourse is Government property and that the order complies with law and natural justice, and dismissed the writ appeal.
The intra-court appeal challenges Sub-section 2 of Section 74B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, introduced by a 2013 amendment, which requires prior permission from the Registrar to open branches by State-level and district co-operative banks in the area of operation of their member credit societies. The appellant, a Primary Agricultural Society formed in 1994, contends that 74B(2) violates Articles 19(1)(c) and 243ZI and is unconstitutional, arguing that it grants unbridled, arbitrary power and should be read as directory rather than mandatory, especially since no penal consequences are prescribed. The Single Bench upheld the constitutional validity, a view echoed by the Division Bench, and noted that the 97th Amendment elevated the right to form a co-operative to a fundamental right, yet still deemed prior permission mandatory. The court relies on Kadungallor Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KLT 67) to support its interpretation that prior permission cannot be bypassed and that such permission serves to prevent unregulated expansion. It also observes that Section 101 permission cannot be bypassed by mere subsequent consent. While the matter remains sub judice on other petitions, the appellate court ultimately dismisses the writ appeal, leaving the petitioners to pursue remedies against the Registrar’s order in accordance with law.
CRL.M.C No. 9467 of 2023; CRL.M.C No. 9449 of 2023 These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arise from Crime No.182/2022 of Pazhayangadi Police Station, Kannur, and concern petitions seeking quashing of prosecutions under Section 482 CrPC in the wake of a settlement between the accused and the victim. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.9467/2023 is Nakul, while the petitioners in Crl.M.C.9449/2023 are Bipil P and Shibu C; the respondents in both matters are the State of Kerala (represented by the Public Prosecutor) and Ramesh N., the de facto complainant. The petitioners and the victim have filed separate affidavits expressing willingness to settle and to quash the criminal proceedings. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that the parties have settled. The High Court, after examining the facts, the affidavits, and precedents, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, held that the dispute is private in nature and the settlement can be accepted under the powers of Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the civil/private nature predominates and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. Accordingly, both Crl.M.Cs are allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. The court cautioned that such quashing is not to be invoked for heinous or public‑interest offences, or for offences under special statutes where public interest prevails.
WP(C) Nos. 40882/2022, 40946/2022, 40968/2022, 40972/2022, 41002/2022 These consolidated writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenge the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's (KSRTC) recovery of gratuity amounts after retirement, argued to have been wrongly deducted on the basis of erroneous options in the benefits extended during service. The petitioners—drivers and a peon who retired between 2016 and 2019—contend that such recoveries are unlawful unless triggered by fraud or misrepresentation or an explicit undertaking to repay from pensionary benefits, as clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and reinforced in High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh. They also point to KSRTC’s own proceedings (WP(C) 31452/2018) and a post-judgment order dated 30.11.2022 as indicating that recoveries must be tested against these precedents. KSRTC counters that the recoveries were made within the legal framework because the benefits had been granted on the basis of wrong options, not due to fraud; undertakings to repay, where applicable, are cited as barriers to refunds. The Court, while acknowledging recoveries made in 2018, notes that the decisive tests from the cited precedents have not been fully addressed by KSRTC, and therefore cannot grant relief without considering those doctrines. It directs KSRTC to hear the petitioners and determine refunds if warranted, strictly in light of Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh, with timelines for action, and with consequential orders within the four-month window if refunds are due.
W.A.Nos 205, 206, 210, 218, 219 & 226 OF 2021 These batch writ appeals challenge a 2021 order concerning the appointment of the Administrative Head/Principal of the Vocational Higher Secondary School (VHSS) at Karavaram, Thiruvananthapuram. The post of Principal fell vacant on 1 June 2020. Government orders and circulars (notably G.O. No. 18/2012/DGE and related orders) created a framework for provisional administrative assignment of the VHSS section to the senior-most vocational/non-vocational teacher, while directing that the headmasters continue to head the higher secondary section and that the person so assigned would also teach, receive a Rs. 1000 special allowance, and step down the prior monthly allowance for the VHSE head. The appellants, including S. Hariharan Pillai, Priyadarshini S., and Manesh Varghese, contended that seniority should be determined by date of entry into service (with age as tie-breaker), and that absence on leave should not erase seniority or eligibility for the Administrative Head post. Respondents argued the GO and interim arrangements, with the Director of General Education and VHSE authorities implementing decisions. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, ultimately held that Priyadarshini is entitled to claim the Principal post for a vacancy occurring after 1 June 2020, set aside the impugned judgments, and directed appointment of Priyadarshini, while keeping inter se disputes between Hariharan Pillai and Sindhu open.
WP(C) Nos. 2053/2021 & 3216/2020 These connected writ petitions arise from disputes over the parking of autorickshaws and auto taxis at the Gunduparambu Stand in Chellanam Grama Panchayat. The petitions reference orders issued by the Chellanam Grama Panchayat and by the Regional Transport Office regarding parking arrangements. After hearing both sides, the Court notes that a resolution lies in directing the Traffic Regulatory Committee (TRC) for Chellanam Grama Panchayat to address the parking issues. The court references the decision of Noushad M. v. State of Kerala to justify constituting TRCs under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, which empowers local authorities to regulate traffic, including stand demarcation for autorickshaws and auto taxis, subject to Motor Vehicles Act and Kerala Road Safety Act. In the result, the President of the Panchayat is to place the parking issue before the Chellanam TRC within two weeks, and the TRC is to hear all stakeholders and pass a decision within two months. The TRC’s decision will supersede other statutory authorities’ orders on parking in the Gunduparambu area, and the petitions are disposed of with these directions.
WA Nos. 120, 121, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 156, 157, 160, 163, 164, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 192, 195, 197, 198, 199, 207, 210, 211, 213, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 272, 275, 276, 277, 285, 286, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 300, 308, 311, 318, 319, 320, 321, 330, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339 and 359 of 2023 This is a batch judgment of the Kerala High Court delivered on 28 February 2023 arising from multiple writ appeals (WA Nos. 120–359 of 2023 and connected cases) challenging orders in WP(C) petitions concerning compensation under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 for casualties in the Karipur air crash and related airline liability issues. The court consolidated hearing across numerous appeals where petitioners (appellants) contended that air carriers, including Air India Express Limited and related Air India assets holders, are subject to the Carriage by Air Act regime and that minimum compensation under the Act should be payable, and that public-law remedies (Article 226) should apply to carriers discharging sovereign/public functions. The respondents argued that Air India is a private entity and not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and that compensation was settled through negotiated settlements, with liability anchored to proven damages rather than minimum fixed amounts. The judgment clarifies the legal landscape: (i) Rule 26 of the Third Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act nullifies contractual provisions seeking to limit liability but only where beneficial to passengers; (ii) the Single Judge’s view on mandatory minimum SDR compensation is overruled by precedents; (iii) the Division Bench decisions in National Aviation Company of India Ltd. v. S. Abdul Salam et al. recognize liability for damages for proven loss; (iv) altogether, the batch petitions are dismissed with no costs. The decision provides important guidance on the interplay of international conventions, statutory liability, and contractual autonomy in aviation law.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.6888 of 2022) before the Kerala High Court challenges an order dated 28 September 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class XI, Thiruvananthapuram, cancelling bail previously granted to accused Nos. 1–3 in Crime No.772 of 2019 (Peroorkada Police Station) under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners are the Chairman, Managing Director and Director of M/s Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd, who allegedly received Rs.30 lakh by promising a flat but failed to deliver. The bail application had been considered in this Court and mediation was attempted; an undertaking was recorded that a completed flat would be provided in another project on payment of the balance consideration. When the de facto complainant moved to cancel bail, the Magistrate found no bonafide offer and that the explanations were unsatisfactory, cancelling bail on grounds of non‑compliance. The petition contends that the accused face financial difficulties and that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should apply to bar proceedings; reliance is placed on Ajay Kumar Radhe shyam Goenka v Tourism Finance Corporation (2023 KHC Online 283) to argue that Section 14 cannot affect criminal proceedings. The High Court, while noting the undertaking and the Magistrate’s findings, declines to interfere, endorsing the standard bail framework (as in Deepak Yadav v. State of UP) and observing that the accused may seek regular bail on merits. The impugned order is sustained.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from concurrent decrees in OS 114/2011 (Principal Sub Court, Kottayam) challenged by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, through RSA 210 of 2020. Plaintiffs 1–5 sought declaration of title and injunction over properties A, B, C schedules and a D schedule pathway in Muttambalam, Kottayam, part of 1.35 acres in Old Survey No.105/13A–13B; A and B were acquired by the Railways in 1954–55 and later re-surveyed as Re-survey No.56 and 75, with the railway land now appearing in Re-survey No.67. The plaintiffs contended that portions of A and B and all of C and D were wrongly included in Re-survey 67 and that C and D belonged to plaintiffs 1–3, with D being a right of user for the 4th plaintiff. The Railways argued that C and D were part of Re-survey 67 and that Railways had not acquired Old Survey Nos.105/12 and 105/13; it urged that the commission report be set aside and a Total Station Survey be conducted. The trial court and the District Court held that C and D originally formed part of A and B and that no acquisition of those parcels occurred; the High Court affirmed these findings, held that mere inclusion in Re-survey 67 does not vest title, and dismissed the second appeal. The case underscores documentary evidence, boundary demarcation, and applicability of Section 80 CPC.
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by three accused—Rajesh, Dasaradhan and Aneesh—in Crime No.1074/2023 of Mulantthuruthy Police Station, Ernakulam, seeking bail during trial for offences including attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) along with Sections 323, 324, 341, 294(b), 506(i) and 34 IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 25.12.2023; petitioner 2 was remanded on 1.1.2024 due to treatment. The prosecution’s case is that, around 9:30 p.m. on 25.12.2023, the accused, in their common intent, attempted to murder the husband of the de facto complainant and his brother with a chopper, causing injuries. The petitioners contend innocence and false implication, asserting investigation is practically complete and further detention is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting ongoing investigation and presenting an Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate of an injured person indicating minor injuries, while also noting the first accused’s criminal antecedents. On consideration, the court notes that the petitioners have been in custody since 25.12.2023, the investigation is practically complete, and recoveries have been effected. Accordingly, the court allows bail subject to stringent conditions including bond of Rs.50,000 per accused with two sureties, regular appearances, no inducement or tampering with evidence, surrender of passport, and compliance with recoveries as permitted by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi). The order thereby grants bail with safeguards to ensure integrity of the investigation.
This High Court of Kerala appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award (Ottapalam) dated 11 November 2008 in OP(MV) No.1299/2005, awarding compensation to the injured petitioner for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 9 August 2005 involving a goods autorickshaw. The appellant, Sreedharan (vegetable merchant) died during proceedings and his legal heirs were brought on record as additional appellants. The Tribunal found the accident to be caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver, with the insurer liable to indemnify; however it computed the claimant’s monthly income at Rs 2,000 on a notional basis and awarded a lump-sum compensation including transportation, nourishment, clothing losses, pain, and loss of amenities, along with interest at 8% p.a. The appellant challenged the adequacy of compensation, miscalculation of income, and disability, arguing a higher actual income (Rs 5,000–6,000 per month), longer loss of earning period, and separate heads of damages. The respondent insurer argued that income was not proved, the notional Rs 2,000 should stand, and Ext. A9 disability evidence should be treated as only 2% disability, with the 14 multiplier not appropriate. The Kerala High Court re-evaluated the evidence, fixed Rs 5,000 monthly income, seven months of loss of earnings, and applied the Sarla Verma multiplier (14) with revised disability figures, recomputing substantial additional compensation. The court ultimately enhanced the total award to Rs 1,17,200 as additional compensation, with interest at 7.5% p.a., and directed deposit within two months, while ordering apportionment of the extra award among the appellants. The delay interest for 40 days was exempted.
MACA No. 51 of 2019; CO No. 52 of 2019 in MACA No. 51/2019 This Kerala High Court judgment arises from cross-appeals (MACA No. 51/2019 and CO No. 52/2019) against an MACT Kollam award in OP(MV) No.2000/2015 concerning the death of Shameer in a road accident involving a KSRTC bus in 2015. The insurer challenges the sufficiency of the Quantum and the liability framework; the claimants challenge the quantum as excessive in some heads. The Tribunal held the vehicle liable, with compensation of ₹36,00,040, directing the insurer to pay with interest. On appeal, the insurer argued that the monthly income of the deceased and the deductions for personal expenses were wrongly calculated, contending that the employer’s Ext. A11 salary certificate was not properly relied upon and that Sarla Verma’s deduction framework should limit dependents. The High Court, applying Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, fixed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹13,000 (for a 2015 death involving a skilled worker) and allowed the four dependents to be considered for personal expenditure deductions, upholding a 1/4 deduction. It rejected the contention to exclude the father as a dependent, citing societal realities. The court also held that ₹50,000 awarded for pain and suffering was not justifiable under Satinder Kaur and increased the loss of consortium to ₹1,60,000, relying on Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur’s case. Consequently, the total compensation was revised to ₹29,84,600, to be deposited within three months. The appeal and cross-objection are disposed of accordingly.
R.C.Rev. No.433 of 2019 is a Kerala High Court revision petition filed by the tenant, K. Ramanunni, challenging the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s order directing eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in a matter originally proceeding from eviction petitions under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3). The landlord, represented by legal heirs after the demise of the original landlord, sought eviction on the ground of bona fide need to run a stationery-cum-fruit stall from the premises. The Rent Control Court had initially granted eviction under both heads; the Appellate Authority set aside 11(3) but remitted for fresh consideration. After adduction of further evidence, the Rent Control Court dismissed the 11(3) petition; the landlords’ appeal to the Appellate Authority restored eviction under 11(3). The tenant argued that the building housing the tenanted premises was pulled down during the pendency of proceedings, that the landlord’s death should affect the relief sought, and that the first proviso to Section 11(3) or other vacant premises should preclude eviction. The court examined the destruction of the building, cited landmark precedents (notably Shaha Ratansi Khimji) and stressed the limited scope of Section 20 review, ultimately upholding the Appellate Authority’s reasoning and dismissing the revision petition. The judgment clarifies that destruction of the building does not automatically terminate the lease and that the legal representatives may pursue eviction. Final order: revision petition dismissed.
Three daily-wage employees of the STED Project in Kozhikode challenged termination orders following a gender-harassment complaint. The Petitioners, who held posts as project assistant, receptionist and computer faculty, were dismissed and navigated OP 3535/2003; the Court’s 12.01.2007 order directed a Vishaka-guided enquiry and reinstatement pending final disciplinary action, keeping back-wages for determination later. The petitioners were re-engaged on daily-wage terms in 2007, but sought full back wages for the period they remained out of service (22.01.2003 to 29.05.2007). The respondents contended that the petition lacked complete particulars and urged Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act as an alternate remedy, also noting that the petitioners were gainfully employed elsewhere during the period. The Division Bench upheld that the enquiry should proceed in accordance with Vishaka and that wages during non-employment were to be decided at an appropriate stage by management. In the present writ petition before Judge Amit Rawal, the court examined Section 33-C of the ID Act, pendency before the labour conciliation officer, and the broader principles governing dismissal and reinstatement. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, indicating back-wage issues require resolution within the statutory framework and that no immediate relief was warranted on these facts.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 195 OF 2022 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the revision petitioners-accused nos. 1 and 2 in S.T. No.225/2012 challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the concurrent appellate dismissal. The complainant alleged that on 15.09.2009, the second accused, acting for and on behalf of the first accused, issued a cheque for Rs. 13,87,198 towards payment for medical disposables purchased. The trial court convicted the accused and directed the second accused to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,52,444 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No.43/2018 upheld the conviction and the sentence. In revision, the High Court reviewed the evidence, including PW1, PW2 and Exts P1–P7, and found the transaction and the cheque’s execution established; it recognized the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act in favour of the complainant, noting these presumptions are rebuttable with proof by the accused on a preponderance of probabilities. The High Court emphasized that a Cr.P.C. revision is not a wide re-appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, though the court granted one month to pay the compensation, deferring the sentence till 7.9.2023 and directing the 2nd accused to appear on 8.9.2023 to pay or face execution of the sentence.
This High Court of Kerala, in SSCR No. 23 of 2023, deals with a Special Commissioner's report concerning the selection process for Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The report aims to ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to prescribed guidelines for interviewing and shortlisting candidates. Sabarimala Temple, located within the Periyar Tiger Reserve, falls under the Travancore Devaswom Board, and the Melsanthi’s tenure lasts one year from Vrischikam 1 to Thulam 31 of the following year. Earlier judgments, notably Mohandas Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2001), held that the Board, as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot select a Melsanthi without guidelines; a prior mediation-centered settlement (2010-11) defined the composition and process of the Selection Committee. The judgment reiterates that judicial review is restricted in religious matters when settled terms govern selection. It directs strict adherence to the Supreme Court’s 2011 directives and the settlements, appoints a distinguished observer, Justice K. Padmanabhan Nair, to supervise the proceedings on 14–15 September 2023, ensures video recording and safekeeping of marks, and orders submission of the observer’s report and related CD by 15 October 2023, after which the draw of lots may proceed. The Court disposes of the SSCR with these directions and reserves fresh reporting post-interview.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case concerns Varghesenelson, the fifth accused in Kundara Police Station Crime No.437 of 2020 registered under NDPS Act sections 20(b)(ii)(B). The petitioner obtained bail from the Sessions Court on 05/10/2021 subject to a condition not to involve in similar offences. Subsequently, he faced two more FIRs: Crime No.466 of 2023 under NDPS Act sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(b), 29, and Crime No.469 of 2023 under IPC sections 363, 376(2)(n), 376. The Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail on the ground that the accused had engaged in two subsequent crimes and violated the bail conditions. The petitioner contends that mere registration of a subsequent crime cannot justify cancellation of bail and relies on Godson v. State of Kerala and Renjith v. State of Kerala to argue that bail should not be cancelled merely on request. The Public Prosecutor counters with Supreme Court precedents such as P. v. Madhya Pradesh and Another, Edwin Thomas v. State of Kerala, and other authorities, arguing misuse of liberty constitutes valid grounds for cancellation. The court discusses the distinction between setting aside an unjustified or illegal order and canceling bail for misconduct or new facts, citing Gurcharan Singh, Puran, Abdul Basit alias Raju, Ranjit Singh, and Dolat Ram. It ultimately affirms cancellation of bail on misuses but allows the petitioner to seek regular bail later, and dismisses the petition with directions to consider merits for future bail applications under Deepak Yadav principles.
