COMMON ORDER:

1. Since the petitioners are A1, A2 and A5 in Crime No.373/2021 registered for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and all the three petitions are filed by the State seeking cancellation of bail, they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Order.

2. Facts of the case are that on 29.09.2021 at about 9.00 a.m, A1 to A4 were apprehended while transporting 80 packets of Dry Ganja, having purchased the same from A6 and A7 through the mediator A5. 65 packets of ganja loaded in Mahindra Bolero were seized. The total weight of the seized packets from A1 to A-4 was 170 Kg.190 grams.

3. On the basis of the recoveries, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2021. Thereafter, during the course of investigation it was found that petitioner/A5 was involved, for which reason, A-5 was remanded to judicial custody on 15.11.2021 on PT warrant, as he was in custody in another case.

4. Learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam granted bail to (i) A1 on 19.04.2022 vide Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2022, (ii) A3 on 10.05.2022 vide Crl.M.P.No.453 of 2022 and (iii) A5 on 10.05.2022 vide Crl.M.P.No.454 of 2022.

Aggrieved by the granting of bail to the respondents/accused, the State filed the above petitions seeking cancellation of bail.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has totally lost sight of the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and also no reasons are assigned as to why bail was granted in a case where the contraband seized was above the commercial quantity. That the respondents/accused are all habitual offenders involved in other cases, for which reason, their enlargement on bail has to be cancelled.

Further learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the bail was granted in a mechanical manner without even considering the gravity of the offence and also the previous criminal history of these petitioners.

6. The accused moved for bail and the police filed counters opposing the bail applications stating that the petitioners were habitual offenders and cannot be granted bail, however the facts stated in the counters were ignored.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused would submit that cancellation of bail cannot be made without there being any strong necessity for such cancellation. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in the case of Dolat Ram and others vs.

State of Haryana1, wherein at para 4, it is held as follows: “4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the

1 (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349 cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors r