Procedural errors warrant setting aside cancellation of bail; summary inquiry required before such decisions.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the second accused in S.C. No.

93/2022 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. 323/2021 registered by the Pookottumpadam Police Station, Malappuram, for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘Act’ for short).

2. The petitioner states in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure A2 order, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on 09.03.2022. As per condition No. (iv), the petitioner was directed not to be involved in any other crime while he was on bail. Subsequently, the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No. 737/2025 (Annexure A3) registered by the Kodakara Police Station, Thissur District, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii)(B) and 29(1) of the Act and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act . On the registration of the subsequent crime, the second respondent filed C.M.P. No. 3531/2025 (Annexure A5) before the Trial Court to cancel the Annexure A2 order. By Annexure A8 order, the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the second respondent and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. Annexure A8 order is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The petitioner asserts that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. In fact, the petitioner was in judicial custody at the time when the present application was filed. Only notice to his erstwhile counsel was issued, who did not effectively represent the petitioner. Moreover, the Trial Court has not conducted any summary enquiry as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2018) 3 SCC

22], Daulat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana [ (1995) 1 SCC 349 ]. Hence, Annexure A8 order may be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are materials to substantiate the petitioner's culpability in the crime. Merely because the petitioner was not effectively represented by a lawyer, it is not a ground to quash Annexure A8 order.

5. The prosecution had filed Annexure A5 petition to cancel the bail on the sole ground that the petitioner got involved in another crime.

6. In Jamsheer Ali v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 332] , this Court has categorically held that, as cancellation of bail affects the 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’s and Daulat Ram’s cases (supra).

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

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C in the following manner:

(i) Annexure A8 order is set aside.

(ii) Annexure A5, the petition filed by the prosecution, is dismissed.

(ii) The petitioner is permitted to contest the proceedings on the very same bail bond and sureties that were permitted as per Annexure A2 order.

Sd/-