Last update:06 Nov 2024, 16:04 IST

The court held that the accused, despite a bail condition prohibiting contact with the victim, violated it by living with her and having sexual relations with the promise of marriage, only to later withdraw from her.

The petitioner was initially granted regular bail in 2022 under certain conditions, including a directive that he must not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses. (PTI)

The Kerala High Court has upheld the cancellation of the bail granted to a man named Nibin Khan, accused of raping the same minor on bail twice. A single judge of Justice A Badharudeen dismissed Khan’s plea to set aside the bail cancellation order issued by the special court.

The petitioner was initially granted regular bail in 2022, subject to certain conditions, including a directive not to intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses; nor must they alter the evidence or contact the victim or their family members. However, Khan allegedly breached this condition while on bail.

Between September and October 2023, the petitioner allegedly took the de facto complainant with the intention of persuading her to withdraw from the criminal investigation, even engaging in sexual acts with her during this period. This led to the filing of a second case, with charges under sections 354, 376(2)(n) and 195A of the Indian Penal Code and section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

The high court granted the accused anticipatory bail in December 2023 for the second offence, after it emerged that he was in a romantic relationship with the victim and intended to marry her. But the marriage could not be solemnized and as a result the bail granted to the accused was canceled by the special court.

Petitioner’s counsel argued that despite the relationship between petitioner and plaintiff that led to the first offense, the trial court should not have revoked bail. It appears that the petitioner and the applicant decided to live together and intended to marry, as indicated by a marriage notice, although the marriage did not materialize.

The court considered the key question, “whether the Special Court canceled the bail on valid grounds and the same would require intervention?”. In response to this, the court emphasized the importance of complying with bail conditions, particularly when the accused is granted liberty pending trial. The court emphasized established legal principles and stated that “if the accused abuses his freedom by engaging in a similar activity/another crime, violating the condition(s) imposed in the bail order, the same is a circumstance which intervened for the annulment bail”.

The court also emphasized that “the legal position is well established. When a court grants bail after imposing conditions, breach of any of the conditions in a bail order would lead to cancellation of the bail by invoking the power under Section 439 (2) Cr.PC.”

The court noted that the petitioner was granted bail on condition that he not contact the victim or her family. In clear violation of this condition, the petitioner brought the de facto complainant with him, lived with her and subjected her to sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage. Despite giving notice to marry under the Special Marriage Act, the petitioner later withdrew from the marriage.

The court pointed out that bail is not a right but a concession which can be revoked if it is abused or if the conduct of the accused obstructs the course of justice, citing Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995). Given the seriousness of the breach and subsequent criminal activity, the court concluded that the Special Court’s decision to revoke Khan’s bail was justified.

In light of these findings, the high court ruled against the petitioner, reinforcing the principle that bail should be revoked when there are compelling reasons that make it no longer conducive to a fair trial.