The court must ensure a summary inquiry before canceling bail to protect personal liberty, as established by precedent.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.942/2025 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) (Act) and NDPS Act cases, (‘Trial Court’ for short) Manjeri, which has originated from Crime No. 160/2025 registered by the Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram, for allegedly committing an offence under Section 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘Act’ in short). By Annexure A1 order, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on 21.03.2025, with a specific condition that he shall not commit a similar offence that he is accused of. Subsequently, the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No.563/2025 registered by the Vengara Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under (c) 29 of the Act. By Annexure 3 order, this Court released the petitioner from custody on the ground that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to him as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inPankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 7 SCC 576] and the subsequent judgments. Notwithstanding Annexure 3 order, the Investigating Officer in the first crime filed C.M.P. No.3158/2025 before the Trial Court, to cancel Annexure 1 order on the ground that the petitioner has got involved in the subsequent crime. By Annexure 4 order, the Trial Court cancelled Annexure 1 order. Annexure 4 order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. The Trial Court has not afforded the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before passing the said order. Moreover, the Trial Court has also not conducted a summary inquiry as laid down by this Court inJamshee Raji vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 332] . Hence, Annexure A4 order may be set aside.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor.

3. By Annexure 1 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail in the first crime on the specific condition that he should not get involved in any crime of similar in nature.

4. Indisputedly, the petitioner has been arraigned has an accused in Annexure 2 FIR, for allegedly committing an offence under the NDPS Act. In light of Annexure 2 FIR, the Investigating Officer in the first crime filed a petition before the Trial Court to cancel Annexure 1 bail order, which was allowed by Annexure 4 order.

5. A reading Annexure 4 order substantiates that the copy of the petition was only served counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Trial Court. The order does not reflect that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file his objection or being heard. Likewise, the order does not reflect that a summary inquiry was conducted.

6. InJamsheer Ali’s case (supra), this Court has categorically held that, as cancellation of bail affects personal liberty of a person, the Court should conduct a summary inquiry as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2018) 3 SCC 22] , Daulat Ram &

Others v. State of Haryana, [(1995) 1 SCC 349] .

7. In light of non-compliance of the principles referred to the in the above decisions, I am satisfied that the impugned order is erroneous and warrants interference by this Court under Section 528 of BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C by setting aside Annexure 4 order, and order the Trial Court to consider the application, in accordance with law, after permitting the petitioner to file an objection to the application, and adverting to principles laid down in Jamsheer Ali’s case. As the petitioner is in judicial custody, I direct the Trial Court to consider and dispose of the application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks fro