Due process must be observed before canceling bail; a summary inquiry is essential per established legal precedents.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in S.C.No.1006/2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘learned Sessions Judge’, in short) which has originated from Crime No.11/2023 registered by the Excise Range Office, Amaravila, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 , (‘NDPS Act’, in short). By Annexure A2 order, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No.(v), the petitioner was directed not to get involved in any other subsequent crime. Alleging that the petitioner had got himself involved in Crime No.468/2024 registered by the Neyyatinkara Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.1199/2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Thiruvanathapuram, the Investigating Officer in the first crime filed an application to cancel Annexure A2 order passed by this Court. Consequently, by Annexure- A4 order, the learned Sessions Judge has cancelled Annexure A2 order passed by this Court. Annexure A4 order is patently erroneous and unsustainable in law.

Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

3. By Annexure A2 order, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on the specific condition that he should not get involved in any other subsequent crime. Alleging that the petitioner had got himself involved in subsequent crime, the Investigating Officer has filed the application to cancel the bail. Accordingly, by Annexure A4 order the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application cancelling the bail.

4. On a careful scrutiny of Annexure A4 order, I find that the notice on the application to cancel the bail was only served on the counsel of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file his objection to the said application or offered an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, it is to be borne in mind that this Court in Jamsheer Ali vs. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 332] , has emphatically held that before an order cancelling the bail is passed, the jurisdictional Court shall conduct a summary enquiry, peruse the materials on record and prima facie conclude that the accused has committed the 2nd offence in violation of the conditions imposed on him in the first case. On a careful perusal of Annexure A4 order, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has perused the materials in the second crime and came to a perfunctory conclusion that the petitioner has violated the conditions.

5. Going by the principles laid down in Jamsheer Ali’s case (supra), it was the bounden duty of the learned Sessions Judge to have conducted a summary enquiry in the matter and perused the materials in record, and then came to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner had violated the conditions in the first order. Not having had done so, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS , to set aside Annexure A4 order and direct the learned Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter afresh and in accordance with law.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside Annexure A4 order and directing the learned Sessions Judge to reconsider the application after adverting to the law laid down Jamsheer Ali’s case and the other precedents that govern the field.

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed, by setting aside Annexure A4 order and permitting the petitioner to file his objections if any to the said application to cancel the bail, within one week from today (05.03.2026). If such objection is filed, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to consider and dispose the application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, wi