The bench stated “When a Court grants bail after imposing conditions, violation of any of the conditions in a bail order would lead to cancellation of bail by invoking power under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C by the Sessions Court and the High Court.”
Kerala: The Kerala High Court has affirmed the decision of a Magistrate to cancel the bail of two accused persons for violating bail conditions.
The case was reviewed by Justice A. Badharudeen, who observed that Section 437(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows any court, other than the High Court or Sessions Court, to cancel bail if the conditions are violated.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Stays ‘Punyam Poonkavanam’ Project at Sabarimala Temple
Background
The case involved two accused persons who had been granted bail by the High Court but later faced cancellation by the Magistrate due to non-compliance with bail conditions. Advocate Vivek Venugopal represented the petitioners, while Advocate Benny Joseph appeared for the respondent.
The criminal case originated in 2020 when a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for cheating), and 471 (using forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused were associated with M/s Statice Hotels Private Ltd., a company involved in the hospitality and real estate business.
The complainant, along with her NRI husband, invested Rs. 11.53 crores into the company in 2018. However, it was later alleged that the first accused had concealed his resignation from the company and improperly received investment funds. The second and third accused—his wife and sister-in-law—were also implicated in illegal activities.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court: Lawyers Cannot Record or Circulate Virtual Court Proceedings
The accused were granted bail with strict conditions, including surrendering their passports to the jurisdictional court and seeking court permission for any international travel. If they did not possess passports, they were required to submit affidavits confirming this.
Justice A. Badharudeen highlighted,
“While addressing the question as to whether which is the provision of law authorizes a Magistrate or a Court other than the High Court or Sessions Court to cancel the bail granted to an accused, Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. permits any Court other than the High Court or Court of Sessions, which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) of Section 437 or sub-section (2), to do the said exercise.”
Upon examining the facts, the court found that the first accused had complied by surrendering his passport and later obtaining permission for a short visit to Dubai. He returned and surrendered his passport on March 28, 2021. However, the other two accused delayed surrendering their passports for 19 months and only did so after receiving notices regarding the bail cancellation petition.
Moreover, the second accused traveled abroad without surrendering the passport.
Justice Badharudeen elaborated on the legal framework for bail cancellation, stating,
“When a Court grants bail after imposing conditions, violation of any of the conditions in a bail order would lead to cancellation of bail by invoking power under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C by the Sessions Court and the High Court.”
The Bench concluded that the Magistrate’s decision to cancel the bail for accused Nos. 2 and 3 was justified.
It observed,
“In such a case, on meticulous analysis of the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. The said finding is justifiable and no interference is called for.”
Explaining further, the court stated,
“It has been provided that the Court other than the High Court and Sessions Court may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. In fact, Section 439 of Cr.P.C. deals with special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail and Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. permits the High Court or Court of Session to direct that any person who has been released on bail be arrested and commit him to custody for valid reasons.”
ALSO READ: “No Estoppel Against Court’s Errors” – Kerala High Court Recalls Child Custody Order
The Bench added, “Therefore, the application, even though filed by quoting Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, the power exercised by the Magistrate, in view of the specific delegation by this Court, is to be reckoned as one under Section 437(5) read with 439(2) of Cr.P.C.”
Finally, dismissing the petitions, the Court ruled,
“Interim order of stay granted in Crl.M.C. No. 5639/2022 in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the matter of their surrender before the trial court stands vacated, with direction to accused Nos.2 and 3 to surrender before the Magistrate Court, forthwith, at any rate, within a period of seven days from today.”
Case Title: Salini Vijayan & Anr. v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:17607)
