Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: August 12, 2022 at 20:13 IST
According to the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Godson v. State of Kerala, a simple breach or non-compliance with a bail term by an accused person will not be a reason to cancel bail.
According to single-judge Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, the court must determine whether the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice or whether it affects the outcome of the case when deciding whether to grant a plea to cancel bail due to non-compliance with bail conditions.
The Court emphasised that the bail would not automatically be revoked just because the accused involved in similar offences during the bail period but the accused involved in such offence during the duration of their release on bail.
Further, it was held that although while the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Sections 437(5) and 439(2) give courts the power to direct the arrest of petitioners who have already been released on bail, these stipulations cannot take the place of preventive detention laws.
After reviewing the records, the Court must conduct a summary enquiry to determine if the accused’s bail should be cancelled.
The Session Court’s ruling revoking the accused’s bail was the subject of several applications from the accused, which the Court was evaluating.
The petitioner is charged with violating Indian Penal Code Sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons), and 341 (wrongful restraint) (IPC).
The petitioners argued before the High Court that they were falsely accused of the second crime and that the subsequent case did not in any way affect the trial of the previous case.
The Supreme Court held in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh that bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled without first considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered the accused to continue to be free on bail while the case is being heard.
The petitioners’ involvement in similar crimes alone cannot be a basis for cancelling bail, the court ruled, unless it can be proven that their participation in the following crime affected the outcome of the prior case’s trial.
As a result, it accepted the plea and set aside the Sessions Court’s order.