Court’s Decision:
The Kerala High Court set aside the bail granted to the accused by the Sessions Court on the ground that the accused violated the conditions of bail by travelling abroad without prior permission from the trial court. The Court sternly held, “If the bail condition is that the accused shall not travel abroad without the permission of the Court, it has to be strictly complied with. The Court cannot tolerate the tendency of any party to take judicial orders lightly or to circumvent them”. Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous case filed by the de facto complainant and directed the cancellation of the bail.
Facts:
The petitioner, who was the de facto complainant in a criminal case, challenged the bail granted to the accused by the Sessions Court. The accused was involved in a serious criminal case and was granted bail with a specific condition that he shall not leave India without the express permission of the jurisdictional court. However, shortly after securing bail, the accused proceeded to travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) without applying for or obtaining such permission. It was further revealed that the investigating officer was aware of the accused’s foreign travel and that a subsequent petition was filed before the Sessions Court to regularise this conduct. The complainant, aggrieved by the Sessions Court’s refusal to cancel the bail, moved the High Court seeking cancellation of the same.
Issues:
- Whether the accused had violated the bail condition by travelling abroad without prior permission from the court.
- Whether such violation warrants cancellation of the bail already granted.
- Whether the knowledge of the investigating officer regarding the accused’s travel excuses the non-compliance.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that the Sessions Court erred in not cancelling the bail despite a clear violation of the bail condition. It was argued that the accused willfully disobeyed the court’s direction by travelling abroad without securing prior permission from the jurisdictional court. The petitioner asserted that the conduct undermined the authority of the court and amounted to an abuse of the concession granted in the form of bail. It was further pointed out that the Sessions Court, instead of taking stern action, allowed the accused to continue on bail, which sets a dangerous precedent of condoning such disregard for court orders.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent (accused) contended that although the condition regarding foreign travel was imposed, the same was not wilfully violated. It was argued that the police, particularly the investigating officer, was informed about the travel and had allowed it without any objection. A subsequent application had been filed before the Sessions Court to obtain post-facto permission or regularisation of the travel. The accused claimed that there was no intention to circumvent the bail condition and that the Sessions Court’s discretion in not cancelling the bail ought not to be interfered with by the High Court.
Analysis of the Law:
The High Court analysed the nature of bail conditions imposed in criminal matters and emphasised the importance of strict compliance with such conditions. The Court noted that once bail is granted with specific terms, it is incumbent upon the accused to scrupulously adhere to those terms. The condition relating to non-travel without permission is not a mere formality; rather, it ensures the presence of the accused during trial and guarantees the integrity of the process.
The Court held that courts cannot tolerate casual defiance of such directions and that judicial orders are not suggestions, but mandates requiring compliance.
Precedent Analysis:
While no reported judgments were directly referred in this order, the ruling implicitly aligns with well-established precedents where courts have held that breach of bail conditions can lead to cancellation of bail. The emphasis laid by the Court on the sanctity of judicial orders and the consequences of circumventing them is in line with the principles laid down in past rulings such as Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) and Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010), which affirmed that willful violation of bail conditions invites cancellation of bail.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found the accused’s conduct of travelling abroad without seeking prior leave from the Court to be a clear and deliberate violation. The justification that the police had knowledge of the travel was held to be wholly insufficient, as the authority to permit such travel lay exclusively with the Court. The High Court also deprecated the Sessions Court’s leniency in not treating the violation seriously. It held, “Any breach of a bail condition must be viewed seriously, especially when the liberty granted is conditional upon strict compliance”.
The Court concluded that the Sessions Court had erred in its approach and that the violation warranted cancellation of the bail in the interest of justice and to uphold the authority of judicial orders.
Conclusion:
The Kerala High Court cancelled the bail of the accused for violating the specific condition that prohibited foreign travel without the permission of the court. It reiterated that judicial orders must be followed in letter and spirit and that courts must not permit litigants to dilute the binding effect of such orders by taking shelter under the passive knowledge of investigating agencies. The High Court thus allowed the criminal miscellaneous case and directed the accused to surrender.
Implications:
This ruling serves as a stern reminder that bail conditions are binding and non-negotiable. Courts will take a strict view of any violation, especially involving international travel, which could pose a flight risk. The judgment also implicitly underscores the limited role of police in interpreting judicial orders and the primacy of court discretion in such matters. It reinforces judicial authority and deterrence against casual disobedience of court directions.
Cases Referred:
Though not explicitly cited, the ruling resonates with the principles in:
- Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446: Where the Supreme Court held that violation of bail terms is a ground for cancellation.
- Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684: Reaffirming that bail granted on terms must be complied with strictly.
FAQs:
1. Can bail be cancelled solely for travelling abroad without permission if the police were informed?
Yes. Informing the police does not substitute the legal requirement of seeking permission from the court, especially when the bail condition explicitly mandates court approval.
2. Does the knowledge or inaction of the police protect an accused from cancellation of bail?
No. The Court has clarified that the investigating officer’s knowledge is irrelevant. The court alone has the authority to grant or regularise foreign travel.
3. What are the consequences of violating bail conditions like foreign travel restrictions?
Violation of bail conditions, particularly those restricting foreign travel, can lead to cancellation of bail and issuance of surrender directions or warrants.
