Mere Violation of Bail Condition alone is not a Sufficient Ground for Cancellation of Bail

By K Rajasekharan 2 September 2025No Comments

In the case of Godson v. State of Kerala [2022 (2) KLD 447], the Kerala High Court held that a mere violation of bail conditions, including involvement in a subsequent criminal case, is not sufficient for the automatic cancellation of bail.

The court must conduct a summary inquiry to gather evidence and determine whether the subsequent criminal involvement, such as the accused attempting to interfere with the administration of justice, necessitates revoking bail to ensure a fair trial. In the inquiry the court has to consider whether crime is of such grave nature that it amounts to a supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail.

The mere registration of a subsequent crime against the accused by itself cannot result in an automatic cancellation of bail. It is only an indication of 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 consider 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.

In the above case, the accused, who had been granted bail in an earlier criminal matter with the condition that they would not be involved in any other crime during the bail period, were later implicated in a separate offense. The prosecution subsequently sought to cancel their bail based on this involvement. The accused persons argued that they had been falsely implicated in the subsequent crime and that this new case did not interfere with the trial of the earlier matter. They highlighted that there was no allegation that the alleged victim in the subsequent case was a witness in the original case. They contended that their subsequent implication in offenses could not, in itself, automatically lead to the cancellation of the bail already granted to them, in the absence of cogent and exceptional reasons.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 3 SCC 22], the Kerala High Court overturned the cancellation of bail.

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.

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