The High  Court of Kerala in the case of Renjith v. The State of Kerala held that the bail granted in one crime cannot be cancelled merely because the accused has been subsequently booked in another case.“The mere registration of a subsequent crime against the accused by itself cannot result in cancellation of an automatic bail. Registration of a subsequent crime is only an indication of an allegation or a complaint of the accused having been involved in a subsequent crime. The nature of the subsequent offence and the persons against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, the stage of the case wherein cancellation is sought are also factors that require appreciation” the Court observed.     

In this case, the petitioner was arrayed in another crime for “displaying his nudity before a lady and brandishing a chopper” in an attempt to commit culpable homicide and shouting obscene words on a public road falling under sections 294(b), 323, 308, 354 and 354A IPC. He was granted bail in the second crime, petition as well. was Meanwhile, filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail granted in the first crime due to his involvement in the second crime and the petition was allowed by the Magistrate. The defendant contended that the second crime was registered without any basis and was an instance of false implication. 

While considering a plethora of cases the Court observed that in P v. Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2022), one of the conditions for cancelling bail was if the person misuses his liberty by indulging in similar or other criminal activity.

The Court also made a reference to Godson v. State of Kerala (2022), wherein it was observed that a mere violation of the bail conditions was not sufficient to cancel the bail but the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary to do so based on various factors ought to be arrived at. 

In the present case, the court noted that the Magistrate had, in the exercise of the discretion to grant bail with some conditions  (u/s 437 Cr. P.C), released the petitioner on bail even in the second crime. Despite the same, the petitioner had remained in jail for more than two months, and added that “Though the allegation as regards the second crime is serious, taking into reckoning the contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the absence of any injury on any person and the general allegation that the accused attempted to commit culpable homicide by brandishing a sword in a public road, this Court is of the view that the second crime cannot be treated as overwhelming enough to impede fair trial in the first crime for cancelling the bail already granted”.

 The court thus, set aside the order cancelling bail, and directed the petitioner to be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.