The court emphasized the discretion of the trial court in granting or refusing bail and highlighted the impact of the accused's conduct on the trial as a key factor in bail cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent.

Facts: Petitioner Sagar Sitaram Mitre is the Accused No.2 in Spl. Crl. Case (NDPS) No.11 of 2016. He was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He allegedly possessed a narcotic drug—a prohibited substance.

2. Sagar was granted bail with conditions. Later, he was found to have violated a condition. So the prosecution applied for the cancellation of bail. And, eventually, the trial Court cancelled the bail. Aggrieved, Sagar has filed this Criminal Writ Petition. Under these circumstances, we will narrate the facts only to a limited extent.

3. In the first week of December 2015, the officials attached to the Narcotic Control Board (NCB), Sub Zone, Goa, were informed that the accused, with three other persons, was to arrive at Thivim Railway Station. All were suspected of possessing illegal drugs. At the railway station, the raiding party apprehended all the accused along with a lady. But the lady was let go for she was found not to have been connected with them. Nor did she carry any contraband.

4. If we confine ourselves to Sagar, who is the 2nd accused, he was allegedly carrying Ganja “in two white parcels weighing 5.5 grams”. All the three accused filed separate bail applications. By a common order, dt.18.12.2018, the trial Court enlarged them on bail—with conditions. One of the conditions was that the accused should not leave the State of Goa without the Court’s leave.

5. Later, on 06.06.2019, the prosecution applied to the trial Court for the cancellation of the Sagar’s bail. It has alleged that Sagar has violated the bail conditions. On the merits, the trial Court, through order, dt.15.06.2019, cancelled the bail and sent Sagar back to judicial custody. At any rate, lodged in the prison, Sagar once again applied, under Ext.80, for a bail. But through an order, dt.07.10.2019, the trial Court rejected that bail application. After that, in the first week of December 2019, Sagar has filed this Criminal Writ Petition, assailing the trial Court’s order, dt.15.06.2019, that cancelled bail; and order, dt.07.10.2019, that refused bail after Sagar’s surrender.

Submissions:

Petitioner:

6. Shri Marvin D'Souza, the learned counsel for Sagar, has essentially focused on the cancellation of bail, though the challenge in the Writ Petition relates to both orders—cancellation of bail and refusal of subsequent bail. According to him, from the beginning Sagar adhered to the bail conditions, but the trial prolonged for no reason. In the meanwhile, Sagar’s mother took ill; so he had to rush to Mumbai to take care of her.

7. The learned counsel also points out that when Sagar left for Mumbai, there was no date fixed for trial. In fact, the Special Judge at Panaji, Goa, had been granting long adjournments at the prosecution’s instance. Besides, the learned counsel contends that Sagar was carrying only a minor quantity. And Sagar’s long pre-trial incarceration has already exceeded the sentence the alleged crime carries for minor quantity.

8. Placing reliance on certain authorities, the learned counsel has contended that no bail should be cancelled for the mere asking. And not every minor violation should be treated as a transgression deserving cancellation of bail. The alleged breach of a bail condition must have caused prejudice to the prosecution. In this context, the Courts ought to remember that an individual’s liberty is inalienable.

9. In the end, the learned counsel has submitted that Sagar’s conduct has been bona fide; he attended the next date of hearing on his own. He only went out to tend to his ailing mother. That apart, his getting involved in other crimes after his enlargement should not result in bail cancellation. For there was no condition concerning any future offences.

Prosecution:

10. Shri Rivankar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, has opposed the Sagar’s application. According to him, Sagar wi