Bail conditions must be adhered to, and violation justifies cancellation.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.338 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, North Paravur ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.15 of 2024 registered by the Excise Range Office, Mamala, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 ('NDPS Act', in short).

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, he was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court subject to the specific condition that he should not commit any other offence during the currency of the bail order. However, the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No.43 of 2025 by the very same Excise Range Office for allegedly committing the very same offence. Immediately, the Investigating Officer filed an application before the Trial Court to cancel his bail order. By the impugned Annexure A2 order, the Trial Court has cancelled the first bail order granted in favour of the petitioner in Crime No.15 of 2024. Annexure A2 order is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

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

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was enlarged on bail in the first crime, subject to the specific condition that he should not get involved in any other crime during the currency of the bail order. Indisputably, the petitioner has been made an accused in Crime No.43 of 2025 by the very same Excise Range Office for committing the very same offence. Therefore, prima facie, it is seen that the petitioner has violated the condition in the first bail order. The Trial Court, following the principles laid down by this Court in Ebin C.D. v. State of Kerala [2026 KER 6661] , has conducted a summary assessment of the materials on record and has come to a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner has violated the condition in the first bail order, i.e., by getting himself involved in a subsequent crime of a similar nature. Therefore, I am of the definite view that there is no error, illegality or impropriety in Annexure A2 order, warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the Crl.M.C., by confirming Annexure A2 order, but by reserving the right of the petitioner to workout his remedies in accordance with law.