The court must conduct a summary enquiry before cancelling bail, as established in precedent.

O R D E R Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in S.C.

No.1153/2024 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri (‘ Special Court’, for short) which has originated from Crime No.204/2024 registered by the Kondotty Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , (‘ NDPS Act’, for short)

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure A2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail in the above crime by the Special Court subject to conditions. As per condition No.3 in the said order, the petitioner was directed not to get involved in any other offence, while he is on bail. Subsequently, the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No.11/2025 registered by the Nadakavu Police Station alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act. Immediately, the Investigating Officer in the first crime filed an application before the Special Court seeking cancellation of the bail. The Special Court, by the impugned Annexure A4 order, cancelled Annexure A2 bail order. Annexure A4 order is patently wrong and erroneous. The Special Court has failed to take note of the principles laid down by this Court in Jamsheer Ali v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KHC 332 ], whereby the Courts are obliged to conduct a summary enquiry into the matter, peruse the FIR, seizure mahazar and other connected material and arrive at a prima facie finding that the accused is involved in the second crime. Due to the violation of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, Annexure A4 order may be quashed.

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

4. By Annexure A2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to condition that he should not get involved in any other crime. Annexure A3 FIR shows that the petitioner has been implicated as an accused in another crime subsequent to the passing of Annexure A2 order. Consequently, on the strength of the application filed by the Investigating Officer, the Special Court has cancelled Annexure A2 order, on the ground that there are sufficient grounds for the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.

5. In Jamsheer Ali’s case (supra), this Court has categorically held that, before passing an order cancelling the bail, it is obligatory on the part of the concerned court to hold a summary enquiry, peruse the records, and render a prima facie finding that the accused person has misused the liberty by getting himself involved in a subsequent crime.

6. In the case at hand, on going through Annexure A4 order, I find that the Special Court has not conducted any summary enquiry as laid down in the above decision. Instead, on the mere finding that the petitioner got involved in a subsequent crime, Annexure A4 order has been passed.

7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts and the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the law on the point, I am satisfied that Annexure A4 order suffers from errors of law and the same is liable to be interfered by this Court by exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, by setting aside Annexure A4 order, and directing the Special Court to re-consider the application filed by the respondent, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order, after affording both the petitioner and the respondent an opportunity of being heard. Until such tim