Point of law : Hon'ble Apex Court has adverted to all the past precedents and has encapsulated the circumstances under which bail granted to the accused under S.439 (1) of the Cr. P. C. can be revoked.

ORDER :

This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity), seeking to quash Annexure-6 order by which the bail granted to the petitioner in Crime No.11 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Tirur was cancelled on account of his involvement in a subsequent crime.

2. Short facts are as under:

The petitioner was arrayed as the 1st accused in Crime No. 11 of 2021 of the Tirur Excise Range Office registered by the Excise Inspector under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The facts which led to the registration of the Crime is that on 02.06.2021, at about 9.55 pm., the petitioner was found having concealed 40.5kgs of Ganja in the building bearing No. XV/332 H of Thrippangode Panchayat. As the petitioner was involved in another crime, his arrest was recorded on 18.11.2021. After having undergone custody till 17.05.2022, the petitioner approached this Court, and by Order dated 24.05.2022 in B.A.No.2289 of 2022, he was granted statutory bail. While granting bail, this Court, in addition to other conditions, ordered that the involvement in any other crime while on bail will entitle the investigating officer to file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

3. It appears that thereafter, on 13.10.2022, at about 11 pm, based on secret information, the Police Sub Inspector, Tirur Police Station, reached a lodge situated at Chennara NOC padi, and it was found that the petitioner, along with three others had kept in their possession 14.250 kgs of Ganja and 850 gms of Hashish oil in the lodge room as well as in the car bearing Reg. No.KL-78-6539. It is also alleged that the petitioner, as well as the other accused, were armed with weapons. Based on the detection carried out as above, Crime No. 1024 of 2022 was registered for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)B r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. As the investigating officer found that the condition imposed by this Court while granting statutory bail was violated by involving in another crime registered under the NDPS Act, that too, within a short span of under five months, he approached the jurisdictional court and filed an application for cancellation of bail.

5. The learned Special Judge, after carefully evaluating the facts and circumstances and the settled precedents, came to the conclusion that there are prima facie materials to show that the petitioner had misused the liberty granted and, by a considered order, came to the conclusion that the bail granted to the petitioner in Crime No.11 of 2021 of Excise Range Office, Tirur was liable to be cancelled. The above order is under challenge.

6. Miss Sai Pooja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that mere registration of a subsequent crime against the accused by itself cannot be a circumstance for cancellation of the bail already granted to the accused. It is contended that though the petitioner got involved in a subsequent crime, the fact remains that the bail was cancelled only by order dated 11.04.2023. According to the learned counsel, there is no link between the impugned order and the prejudicial activity which led to the passing of the order. It is urged that a perusal of the records in respect of the subsequent crime would disclose that the mandatory formalities with regard to search and seizure were complied with more by its breach than by compliance. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by this Court in Godson v. State of Kerala, 2022 (2) KLD 447, and it is argued that this Court has held that mere violation of bail conditions is not sufficient to cancel the bail, but the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary to do so based on various factors. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in Renjith v. State of Kerala, 2023 (2) KHC 310, and it was ar