Public safety in narcotics cases supersedes technicalities. Bail can be revoked under Section 439(2) if new circumstances arise, reflecting the need to protect life and liberty. The burden of proof on habitual offenders is critical.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned PP for the respondent.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Special 20 of 2021 (NDPS) whereby Special Judge cancelled the Bail Order dated 04.09.2021 granted in favour of the petitioner and thereafter release the petitioner on bail in terms of the order dated 04.09.2021.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been wrongly and unlawfully arrayed in a criminal case. He stated in his petition that he was arrested in connection with Case No.2021/RKP/090 dated 07.06.2021 under Section 22 (C),25, 27(A) & 29 of NDPS Act. Thereafter, while the investigation was being carried on, the petitioner made several attempts for bail applications. On 04.09.2021, according to the petitioner a bail application was moved on his behalf before the Ld. Special Judge, and after hearing the parties vide order dated 04.09.2021 the Special Judge granted bail to the petitioner with a condition that he should submit a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with 2(two( sureties of like amount, and one of the sureties must be a government Employee, and both the sureties should be a Government employee, and both the sureties should be the permanent residents of Tripura.

4. It has been stated by the petitioner in his petition that initially he could not get to submit the bail bond as he did not get any bailer. Subsequently, on 21.09.2021 the bail bond was submitted before the judge concerned but Ld. Special Judge refused to accept the bail bond on the ground that the identity of the petitioner is doubtful.

5. On 21.09.2021 rejecting the bail bond given on behalf of the accused the Special Judge has observed that there is a strong doubt about the name and address of the accused inasmuch as two names of him have transpired as per the record i.e. Santunu Mandal as well as Rabiul Hassan Sani. One address is at West Bengal and other address is at Bangladesh and the third address is at Chanban, Udaipur, Tripura. In this situation if we release him accepting the bail bond a huge uncertainty will remain as to his whereabouts so as to bring him before the court during the trial of the case and ultimately the case will drag on this account and the cause of justice will suffer.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2021, the petitioner in due course of time preferred a Criminal Revision Petition being Crl.Rev.Ptn 51 of 2021 challenging the order dated 21.09.2021 in R.K Pur P/S case No. 90 of 2021 in this High Court. The High Court after perusing the matter has allowed the petition by the order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure-4 to the petition) stating that the benefit of bail should be extended to the accused as the learned Special Judge has granted bail to the accused after consideration of his case on merit.

7. The matter before the Special Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur was again heard on 23.11.20231 on a petition being filed by the state under Section 439 (2) of CrPC for cancellation of bail order dated 04.09.2021 granted by the same court in favour of the present accused-petitioner. The said court while re-examining the facts as advanced by the learned PP for the state has observed as follows:

'The provision of Section 439 (2), CrPC does not say clearly that the order by which an accused has been granted bail, cannot be cancelled irrespective of whether he has been released pursuant to the bail order or is s