The cancellation of bail is justified where conditions are violated by reoffending, as seen in preceding judgments.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in SC No.942/2025 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri (‘Special court’), which has originated from Crime No.160/2025 registered by the Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 22 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (‘NDPS Act’).

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, by Annexure 1 order passed by this Court, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No.4 in the said order, the petitioner was directed not to commit any offence similar to the offence for which he was enlarged on bail. While so, the Vengara Police Station registered Crime No.563/2025 against the petitioner and other accused persons, alleging commission of offences under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. By Annexure 3 order, the petitioner was released by the Investigating Officer for the reason that the grounds for arrest were not furnished to him. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent application with the Special Court to cancel Annexure 1 order on the ground that the petitioner had violated condition No.4 in the said order. The Special Court, without issuing notice to the petitioner, cancelled Annexure 1 bail order. However, by Annexure 5 order, this Court set aside Annexure 4 order and directed the Special Court to reconsider the matter. Subsequently, by Annexure 6 order, the Special Court has again cancelled Annexure 1 order. Annexure 6 order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. The Special Court has failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P v. State of Madhya Pradesh And Another [ 2022 KHC 6496 ] and Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana [ 1995 KHC 3286 ]. Hence, Annexure 6 order may be quashed.

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

4. The materials on record reveal that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in the first crime as per Annexure 1 order passed by this Court. Admittedly, as per condition No.4 in Annexure 1 order, the petitioner was directed not to commit an offence similar to the offence that he was alleged to have committed. Notwithstanding the above direction, the petitioner is alleged to have got involved in Annexure 2 FIR for committing offences under Section 22 (c) r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

5. A reading of Annexure 6 order substantiates that the Special Court has conducted a summary enquiry, perused the FIR, seizure mahazar, and other connected records in the second crime, and arrived at a prima facie finding that the petitioner was apprehended with the contraband article. The mahazar has been attested by the independent witnesses and the Seizing Officer. Accordingly, the Special Court has concluded that the petitioner has violated condition No.4 in Annexure 1 order following the principles law laid down by this Court in Jamsheer Ali vs.

State of Kerala [ 2025 KHC 332 ].

6. I have carefully gone through the materials on record and findings in Annexure 6 order. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the Special Court in the impugned order, I do not find any error or illegality in Annexure 6 order warranting interference by this Court by exercising its inherent powers under Section 582 of the BNSS .

The Crl.M.C is devoid of merits and consequently, dismissed.

Sd/-