The court established that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses their liberty by committing similar offences, emphasizing the societal impact of drug-related crimes.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No. 624/2022 of Pandikkad Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as S.C. No. 446/2023 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 02.12.2022, at 07.45 p.m., at Karaya Khaja Nagar, petitioner was found in possession of 7.22 grams of MDMA, purchased by the 2^nd accused from Bangalore.

The petitioner was granted bail by this Court, vide Annexure 1 order dated 18.01.2023. Condition No.(vi) of the order required the petitioner to refrain from getting involved in other offences. The order also authorised the investigating officer to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail, if any condition is violated. As the petitioner violated condition No.(vi) by becoming an accused in Crime Nos.1420/2024 and 1421/2024 registered at the Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram for offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29, and Section 22(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , 2^nd respondent approached the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner and the bail was cancelled as per Annexure 2 order. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in Godson and Another v. State of Kerala ( (2022) KHC 672 ), Renjith v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (2) KHC 310 ] and Visakh v. State of Kerala ( 2024 KHC OnLine 7149 ) to contend that mere registration of subsequent crime/s cannot result in automatic cancellation of bail. According to the counsel, for cancelling the bail, court should be satisfied that the subsequent crime is in relation to an attempt on the part of the accused to interfere with the administration of justice or that the subsequent crime would affect the trial of the case in which the accused was granted bail. Referring to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana [ (1995) 1 SCC 349 ], it is contended that the consideration required for cancellation of bail and grant of bail are distinct and both should be dealt with differently. It is submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the subsequent crimes and no contraband was recovered from his possession.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that, by his involvement in subsequent crimes of similar nature, petitioner misused the liberty granted to him, which is sufficient reason for cancellation of bail. Support for the contention is sought to be drawn from the decision of the Apex Court in P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2022) 15 SCC 211 ].

6. It is true that in the decision of this Court cited above it has been held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically by reason of the accused's involvement in a subsequent crime, unless the prosecution has a case that by such involvement the accused intended to interfere with the administration of justice in relation to the trial of the case in which he was granted bail. In this context it is essential to note that except in Visakh (supra), the offences alleged in the 1^st crime where the accused was granted bail as well as the offences in the subsequent crime were punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In Visakh (supra), while bail was granted in a crime registered for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the subsequent crime was registered for offences under the IPC. As against this, in the case at hand, the crime in which bail was granted as well as the subsequent crimes are registered for the offences punishable under the NDPS Act. In this context, Section 31 of the NDPS Act providing for enhanced punishment