ORDER :

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short), challenging order in Crl.M.P.No.482 of 2022 in S.C(NDPS) 78/2021 in Crime No.392 of 2021 of Kanjirappally Police Station, dated 06.08.2022. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in the above crime. The respondent is State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Short facts:

The petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in S.C(NDPS) 78/2021, arising out of Crime No.392 of 2021 of Kanjirappally Police Station, alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) B, C, 22(a)(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He was nabbed by the police on 22.04.2022 and thereafter released on statutory bail, since the prosecution failed to file final report within the statutory period, as per Annexure-1. While granting statutory bail, one among the conditions was:

“The accused/petitioners shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.”

4. Subsequently on 15.04.2022, Thrikkodithanam Police recovered 9.100 kgs of dried ganja from the possession of the petitioner along with other 2 accused and accordingly, Crime No.521/2022, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as `NDPS' for convenience) and he was arrested in the said case. But he was released on bail subsequently in the above crime.

5. Crl.M.P.No.482/2022 is the petition filed by the prosecution seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner as per Annexure-1 since the petitioner violated condition No.4 in Annexure-1 order. After hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge cancelled the bail relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in [1995 (1) SCC 349], Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana. The above order is under challenge in this petition.

6. While arguing to set aside the order impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioner given emphasis to 2 decisions of this Court. The first decision is one reported in [I.L.R 2022 (4) Kerala 165], Marakkar & anr. v. State of Kerala & anr. In the said decision, while considering Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, this Court held as under:

Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C confers jurisdiction on the High Court or Court of Session to direct that any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII be arrested and committed to custody …...

7. The second decision is of this Court reported in [2022 (4) KLJ 150], Godson & Ors. v. State of Kerala, to contend that involvement of an accused in a subsequent crime by itself is not a reason to cancel the bail.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that since the bail granted to the accused as per Annexure-1 order was cancelled as per Annexure-2 order, the right of the accused to defend the said case as well as the subsequent case outside the jail has been denied and further, mere registration of a subsequent crime by itself is not a reason to cancel the bail.

9. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor placed a 3 Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [2022 KHC 6496 : 2022 (2) KLD 49 : 2022 KHC OnLine 6496 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 552 : 2022 (7) SCALE 411 : AIR 2022 SC 2183], P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr. to contend that if the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity, the same is a reason to cancel the bail granted to the accused, by invoking powers under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C.

10. While considering the cancellation of bail for subsequent involvement of the accused in other offence, this Court, in the decision reported in [2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1129], Sreeja Mannangath v. State of Kerala, considered the impact of the legal question exhaustively and finally following the ratio in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & anr.'s case (supra) held that misuse of liberty by the accused is a reason for cancellation of the bail and