Bail once granted cannot be cancelled mechanically; an appellate court will only interfere under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. if the bail order is found to be perverse, illegal, or based on irrelevant material, provided there is no proof of supervening circumstances warrants revocation.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483(3) BNSS) PRAYING TO 1. ALLOW THIS PETITION 2.CANCEL OR SET ASIDE THE BAIL ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.259/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c), 22(c) OF NDPS ACT R/W 34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.68/2024 REGISTERED BY THE CEN P.S.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - State is before this Court seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent - accused No.1 in Spl. Case No.259/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’, for short) r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, appearing for the petitioner. The respondent, though served long ago, remains unrepresented even today.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is the State and the respondent is accused No.1. The respondent along with other accused gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.68/2024 for the aforementioned offences. On 15-05-2024, the police receive credible information regarding the possession and sale of drugs. The police seize 270 grams of MDMA from the possession of the accused and thereafter, the accused are arrested. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the accused, which is pending before the concerned Court in Spl.C.No.259/2024. The respondent - accused No.1 then approaches the concerned Court seeking regular bail, which is granted by a detailed order dated 21-03-2025. The petitioner – State is now before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent – accused No.1.

4. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is involved in committing a serious offence and was arrested upon being found in possession of 270 grams of MDMA crystal. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would further submit that there is proof, although prima facie, that the respondent has committed the offences as aforementioned. Thus, would seek cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and have perused the material available on record.

6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The respondent – accused No.1 gets embroiled in a crime for the aforementioned offences. The accused in the subject crime are arrested by the jurisdictional Police. The respondent – accused No.1 then seeks bail before the concerned Court, which comes to be granted by an order dated 21-03-2025. The order reads as follows:

“REASONS

6. Point No.1: On 15.05.2024 at 3.00 pm the PSI, CCB, Mangaluru received information about possessing and sale of MDMA in a Toyota Corolla car bearing reg. No. KA-03-MC-9481 at Fiza Mall ground, opposite to K.S. Hegde Hospital, Deralakatte. Thereafter, sent requisition to ACP, CCB for permission to conduct and obtained permission letter bearing No. 04/ಎ/ಅಾರಪತ//ಮಂ.ನ./2024. Thereafter, along with panchas, staff proceeded to the place of information and reached by 4.20 pm and found black colour Toyota Corolla car bearing reg. No. KA-03- MC 9481 parked in the corner of Fiza Mall ground and 4 persons sited in it. After confirming conducted raid and catch-hold Mohammad Amin Raafi, Mohammad Sinan Abdulla, Mohammad Nawman, Mohammad Shafeel. On inquiry they revealed about keeping MDMA in a dashboard of the car. Thereafter, arrested the 4 persons and intimated about the a