Sajin @ Sachu vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Petitioner challenges the order dated 04.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1241/2021 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kollam in Crime No.811/2021 of Kilikolloor Police Station.

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.811/2021 of Kilikolloor Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 3414, 323, 324, 326 & 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By order dated 07.10.2021 in Crl.M.C.No.1744/2021, petitioner who is the first accused in the said crime was granted bail. One of the conditions imposed therein was that the petitioner should not commit any offences while on bail. While so, petitioner was arrayed as an accused in another crime within four months of being enlarged on bail in the earlier crime. Crime No.180/2022 of Eravipuram Police Station is the subsequent crime alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The Inspector of Police, Kilikolloor Police Station later filed an application for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner and two others due to the registration ofthe subsequent crime.

Petitioner contended that the subsequent crime is a false case and that he has been arrayed in the subsequent crime due to undue influence, and also that he had not violated any of the conditions of bail. However, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner after noticing that the bail conditions had been violated and that the accused had created terror in the locality where the witnesses in Crime No.811/2021 resided. The court also took note of a mass petition filed by the residents of the locality seeking protection from the illegal acts of the accused.

Adv.Anjana Kannath and Adv.Pratheesh P., appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the order cancelling the bail was without any merit and that the learned Sessions Judge had proceeded in a mechanical manner to cancel the bail without verifying any of the factors that are material for cancelling the bail already granted.

Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the contentions and submitted that the subsequent crime and the conduct of the accused had created terror and fear in the minds of those persons who were witnesses in the first crime and therefore if the bail already granted is not cancelled, it would not be conducive for a fair trial in the earlier crime. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that considering the nature of allegations in the first crime as well as that in the subsequent crime, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

In a recent decision in Renjith v. State of Kerala, Crl.M.C.No.854/2023, this Court had held that involvement in a subsequent crime by itself ought not to result in cancellation of the bail unless it was not conducive for a fair trial in the first crime. After referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] and in P v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (AIR 2022 SC 2183), this Court observed that cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be necessary to cancel the bail already granted and the supervening circumstance must have rendered it no longer conducive to have a fair trial with the accused remaining at large. It was also observed that each case presents a unique circumstance and must be analysed based on the circumstances arising therein.

With the above principles in mind, when the nature of the present case is considered, it is revealed that the petitioner is facing prosecution in Crime No.811/2021 of Kilikolloor Police Station for a heinous crime under Section 307 and 326 IPC. While granting bail in that crime, the court had imposed a condition that petitioner shall not commit any offences while on bail. Within four months thereafter, petitioner is alleged to have stopped a bus on the road and dragged the driver out of the bus and hit him on his head with a laterite stone inflicting fracture on the nose and on the forehead of the bus driver. The main offences alleged in the subsequent crime is under Sections 324, 326 and 308 IPC. Apart from the above, the local residents had filed a mass petition seeking protection from the illegal acts of the petitioner and other accused. The witnesses in Crime No.811/2021 were alleged to have been threatened by the petitioner and he has created terror in the locality by his conduct.

Petitioner is alleged to have created terror and fear on the witnesses. His criminal antecedents led him to be detained for six months under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. Bearing in mind the various circumstances mentioned above, I am satisfied that the order granting bail in Crime No.811/2021 was liable to be set aside, as releasing him on bail will not be conducive to a fair trial. The nature of offences in the first crime as well as in the subsequent crime, being similar with a brutal assault alleged even in the subsequent crime, resulting in two fractures on the face of the injured is also yet another material factor that cannot be shrugged aside.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order cancelling the bail already granted to the petitioner does not warrant any interference.

Hence this Crl. M.C. is dismissed.