A mere Violation not enough for canceling the bail
A mere violation of bail conditions, including involvement in a subsequent criminal case, is not sufficient for the automatic cancellation of bail, the Kerala High Court held in the case Godson v. State of Kerala [2022 (2) KLD 447].
In arriving at the decision, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 3 SCC 22].
In Renjith v. State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 854 of, 2023] the High Court of Kerala was of the view that despite the registration of the subsequent crime against the petitioner, having regard to the nature of allegations, the order cancelling bail had to be interfered with and set aside the order cancelling bail.
The court must conduct an inquiry to ascertain the allegation
To cancel the bail, the court must conduct a summary inquiry to gather evidence and determine whether the accused has attempted to interfere with the administration of justice, which makes it necessary for the court to revoke the bail for ensuring a fair trial. In the inquiry the court must consider whether crime is of such a grave nature and it falls within the supervening circumstance that warrant cancellation of bail.
The mere registration of a subsequent crime against the accused alone cannot result in an automatic cancellation of bail. It is only an allegation or a complaint of the accused having been involved in a subsequent crime.
The cancellation of bail is not a mechanical process; it requires more than just an alleged breach of conditions. The fundamental right to personal liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, is a significant factor to be considered when evaluating an application for bail cancellation.
For bail to be canceled, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances must exist, which indicate either an abuse of the granted liberty or an attempt to interfere with the due course of justice. The primary consideration for bail cancellation is whether the accused’s conduct makes it impossible to ensure a fair trial.
Cancellation only when the act affects the earlier trial
In the case Godson v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court emphasized that the subsequent involvement was not shown to directly affect the earlier trial. The Court added that when considering an application to cancel bail on the ground of non-compliance with its conditions, the court must assess whether the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or whether it affects the trial of the case in which the accused is implicated.
Violation must lead to fleeing, tampering or threatening witness
The core principle here is that bail is a fundamental right, and its cancellation is a serious step. Courts are cautious about revoking it and generally require a more substantial reason than a minor or technical breach. The violation must demonstrate that the accused is a risk, either by fleeing, tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or otherwise obstructing the judicial process.
References
- Godson v. State of Kerala [2022 (2) KLD 447]
- Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[(2018)3 SCC 22]
- Rajiya vs State Of Haryana [2023:PHHC:164447]
- Deepak Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh [2022]
- Renjith v. State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 854 of, 2023]
