B. Rajendran, J.

1. The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C.C. No. 40 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore. The petitioners were arrested on 25.03.2014 for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w. 21(c), 23, 25, 27, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "NDPS Act"), alleging that they were found in possession and involved in trafficking of commercial quantity of the drug "Heroin". The accused were brought for remand extension on 27.08.2014, but, there is no presiding officer for the Special Court for EC Act and NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore. The Special Judge for C.B.I. Court was incharge for the same and as he was leave on that date and hence, the accused were produced before the Special Judge for Manila Court for the remand extension. The Special Judge for Manila Court has observed in the order dated 27.08.2014 that since, the remand extension report was not filed, the accused are entitled for bail subject to producing sureties and thereafter, for want of sureties, extended the remand and posted the matter on 10.09.2014. Since, the respondent police did not turn up with a report for the remand extension, on 10.09.2014, bail was granted to the petitioners by the Special Judge for C.B.I. Court, incharge for EC Court, with a condition directing the petitioners to execute a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two local sureties and sign before the Special Court daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. Thereafter, the respondent police had filed a memo on 15.09.2014 seeking for cancellation of bail, but, the same was not accepted by the Special Court. Thereafter, the respondent police had filed a petition seeking cancellation of bail under Section 437(5) r/w. 439(2) Cr.P.C. The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore, has allowed the petition on 30.09.2014, thereby, cancelling the bail granted to the accused, on finding that the allegations against the accused are serious in nature and the offence is heinous in nature. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred these Criminal Revision Cases.

2. Mr. G. Murugendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the main grievance of the petitioners is that on 27.08.2014, when the petitioners were brought for remand extension, the concerned Special Judge was on leave or on other duty, therefore, the matter was posted before another Judge viz., Special Judge, Mahila Court and the accused were taken to Mahila Court only for the task of the remand extension. Since, the respondent police has not turned up with the report for remand extension, has rightly observed in its order that the accused are entitled for bail and for want of sureties, extended the remand till 10.09.2014 and on that date, the Special Judge for C.B.I. Court, incharge for EC Court, has rightly granted bail, but, since, no sureties were produced, they were in jail. To substantiate his contention that though, bail was granted to the petitioners, they have not come out on bail and therefore, the petition filed under Section 437(5) r/w. 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail is too premature and it is not maintainable, because, the question of cancellation of bail will not arise when the accused have not at all been released on bail, he would rely on the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 552, B.S. Rawat, Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. Leidomann Heinrich and another. He would further add that it is only because of the failure on the part of the respondent police to be present in Court along with the remand extension report, the Special Judge for C.B.I. Court, incharge for EC Court, did not extend the remand against the petitioners and granted bail. Thereafter only, the respondent police had f