Court’s decision
The Kerala High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court cancelling bail granted to the two accused and restored their liberty upon finding that no condition of bail had been violated. The Court emphasized that “cancellation of bail is not a mere review of an earlier order; it requires cogent, supervening circumstances showing misuse of liberty or interference with the administration of justice.” The Court held that the lower court had mechanically cancelled bail based solely on allegations without supporting material or proof of threat, influence, or intimidation of witnesses.
The Court observed that the allegations put forth by the prosecution, including claims of the accused obstructing investigation or threatening witnesses, were unsubstantiated and not corroborated by factual material. The Court reiterated that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled unless compelling reasons justify curtailing liberty. The Court also noted that both accused had remained cooperative after interim protection was granted, and the prosecution failed to show any continued risk.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application, restored the earlier order granting bail, and clarified that the accused shall continue to comply with all bail conditions, including cooperation with the investigation.
Facts
The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in an offence requiring custodial interrogation. The investigating officer initially opposed bail, arguing that the accused had failed to appear when summoned and that their custodial interrogation was essential. The Sessions Court denied pre-arrest bail at first instance. The accused then secured bail from the High Court, subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the police, and non-interference with witnesses.
Subsequently, the investigating officer filed an application seeking cancellation of bail, asserting that the accused had violated the conditions by remaining non-cooperative and attempting to obstruct investigation. The Sessions Court accepted these allegations and cancelled bail. The accused challenged this order before the High Court, contending that they had complied with all conditions and never interfered with the investigation.
Issues
The core issues were:
- Whether bail already granted can be cancelled without concrete material establishing misuse of liberty.
- Whether mere allegations of non-cooperation, without factual substantiation, justify cancellation of bail.
- Whether the Sessions Court applied the correct legal standard for cancellation of bail under established Supreme Court precedents.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioners argued that they had complied with all bail conditions and had regularly appeared before the investigating officer. They submitted that the cancellation application was motivated and based on assumptions rather than facts. They emphasized that the prosecution had not produced any material showing intimidation of witnesses or non-cooperation. They contended that the allegations made by the investigating officer were vague and unsupported by records of notice, failure to appear, or any written communication claiming violation of bail terms.
The Petitioners submitted that cancellation of bail requires higher scrutiny than rejection of bail at the initial stage. They argued that the Sessions Court improperly cancelled bail without identifying any supervening circumstance. They stressed that the prosecution had not alleged any attempt to abscond, tamper with evidence, or disengage from investigation. Accordingly, they urged the High Court to restore the bail previously granted.
Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that the accused had not fully cooperated with the investigation and that custodial interrogation remained necessary. The prosecution asserted that the accused were evasive, did not disclose relevant information, and therefore impeded progress of investigation. It contended that cancellation was justified because the accused were not complying with the spirit of the bail conditions.
The prosecution maintained that failure to satisfactorily answer questions or provide information could itself constitute non-cooperation warranting cancellation. It urged the Court to give due deference to the investigating officer’s assessment. However, the State did not present any documentary evidence showing failure to appear, violation of conditions, or specific incidents of interference with witnesses.
Analysis of the law
The Court began by reaffirming that the principles governing cancellation of bail are distinct from those applied at the stage of granting bail. Under established jurisprudence, bail may be cancelled only if the accused has misused liberty, engaged in unlawful activities after release, interfered with investigation, intimidated witnesses, or attempted to abscond. Mere dissatisfaction of the investigating agency with the pace or quality of cooperation cannot constitute grounds for cancellation.
The Court observed that cancellation requires “supervening circumstances clearly demonstrating that no purpose will be served by continuing bail.” The Court emphasized that a mechanical reliance on allegations, without examination of factual material, violates constitutional protections of liberty. It concluded that the Sessions Court failed to scrutinize whether the prosecution had established any compelling reason to restrict liberty.
Precedent analysis
The Court referenced the well-settled distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it is granted. It relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that once liberty is granted, it may be curtailed only upon demonstration of misconduct or new developments showing abuse of the concession. These precedents clarify that cancellation cannot be premised on the very grounds considered during the initial bail hearing.
The Court further reiterated that dissatisfaction with the accused’s answers during investigation does not qualify as misconduct. Precedents establish that courts must adopt a higher threshold when evaluating cancellation petitions, as bail is a significant facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the prosecution’s allegations lacked factual foundation. No material was placed on record to show absence during investigation, violation of specific conditions, or threat to witnesses. The Court observed that non-corroborated assertions by the investigating officer cannot form the basis of cancellation. It concluded that the Sessions Court incorrectly treated cancellation as a reconsideration of bail rather than a distinct inquiry requiring supervening circumstances.
The Court found that the accused had complied with the conditions imposed and that their cooperation could not be assessed through subjective dissatisfaction. Since no misuse of liberty was demonstrated, the Court held that the cancellation order was arbitrary and unsustainable.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the bail application, set aside the order cancelling bail, and restored the earlier grant of bail. The judgment underscores that bail cannot be cancelled mechanically and that liberty must be protected from unsubstantiated allegations. It confirms that courts must demand clear, objective reasons before revoking bail, especially when the accused are complying with conditions.
Implications
This judgment strengthens the jurisprudence requiring rigorous scrutiny before cancelling bail. It safeguards the principle that cancellation must be based on concrete misconduct, not investigative dissatisfaction. It will serve as a guide for trial courts to avoid mechanical cancellation and reinforce that liberty cannot be curtailed without compelling reasons. The ruling ensures that accused persons who cooperate with investigation are protected from arbitrary revocation of bail.