Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shibil vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
"CR"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 28TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1199 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2024 IN SC
NO.446 OF 2023 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST),
MANJERI
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SHIBIL
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. MUSTHAFA, MUTTENGADAN HOUSE, CHITTATHPARA,
ANAKKAYAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676509
BY ADVS.
P.MOHAMED SABAH
LIBIN STANLEY
SAIPOOJA
SADIK ISMAYIL
R.GAYATHRI
M.MAHIN HAMZA
ALWIN JOSEPH
BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,,
PIN - 676521
Crl.M.C.No.1199/2025
2
2025:KER:16619
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M.C. ASHI, PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC.CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1199/2025
3
2025:KER:16619
"CR"
V.G.ARUN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.No.1199 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 624/2022 of
Pandikkad Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as S.C.
No. 446/2023 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA)
Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri. The offences alleged against
the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections
22(b) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on
02.12.2022, at 07.45 p.m., at Karaya Khaja Nagar, petitioner
was found in possession of 7.22 grams of MDMA, purchased by
the 2nd accused from Bangalore.
2025:KER:16619
The petitioner was granted bail by this Court, vide
Annexure 1 order dated 18.01.2023. Condition No.(vi) of the
order required the petitioner to refrain from getting involved in
other offences. The order also authorised the investigating
officer to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of
bail, if any condition is violated. As the petitioner violated
condition No.(vi) by becoming an accused in Crime
Nos.1420/2024 and 1421/2024 registered at the
Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram for offences
punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29, and Section 22(a) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 2 nd
respondent approached the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act
and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri seeking cancellation of the bail
granted to the petitioner and the bail was cancelled as per
Annexure 2 order. Hence, this Crl.M.C.
3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:16619
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
decisions of this Court in Godson and Another v. State of
Kerala (2022 KHC 672), Renjith v. State of Kerala [2023 (2)
KHC 310] and Visakh v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC OnLine
7149) to contend that mere registration of subsequent crime/s
cannot result in automatic cancellation of bail. According to
the counsel, for cancelling the bail, court should be satisfied
that the subsequent crime is in relation to an attempt on the
part of the accused to interfere with the administration of
justice or that the subsequent crime would affect the trial of the
case in which the accused was granted bail. Referring to the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dolat Ram and
Others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349], it is
contended that the consideration required for cancellation of
bail and grant of bail are distinct and both should be dealt with
differently. It is submitted that the petitioner is falsely
implicated in the subsequent crimes and no contraband was
recovered from his possession.
2025:KER:16619
5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that, by his
involvement in subsequent crimes of similar nature, petitioner
misused the liberty granted to him, which is sufficient reason
for cancellation of bail. Support for the contention is sought to
be drawn from the decision of the Apex Court in P. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 15 SCC 211].
6. It is true that in the decision of this Court cited above it
has been held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled
mechanically by reason of the accused's involvement in a
subsequent crime, unless the prosecution has a case that by
such involvement the accused intended to interfere with the
administration of justice in relation to the trial of the case in
which he was granted bail. In this context it is essential to note
that except in Visakh (supra), the offences alleged in the 1 st
crime where the accused was granted bail as well as the
offences in the subsequent crime were punishable under the
Indian Penal Code. In Visakh (supra), while bail was granted
in a crime registered for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)
2025:KER:16619
of the NDPS Act, the subsequent crime was registered for
offences under the IPC. As against this, in the case at hand, the
crime in which bail was granted as well as the subsequent
crimes are registered for the offences punishable under the
NDPS Act. In this context, Section 31 of the NDPS Act
providing for enhanced punishment for offences after previous
conviction, Section 31A providing for death penalty for certain
offences after previous conviction and the rigour of Section 37,
in the matter of grant of bail for certain offences cannot be
overlooked. The above provisions are indicative of the gravity
of drug related crimes and severity of punishment in view of its
societal impact. While on the point, it is essential to mention
that in the year 2024, 24,517 narcotic related arrests were
reported in Kerala, compelling even the State legislature to
suspend its regular business for discussing the social impact of
substance abuse. This Court cannot be oblivious of this reality.
The poisonous fangs of the drug mafia have reached even our
school going children. While liberty of an individual is precious
2025:KER:16619
and is to be protected zealously, that cannot be at the cost of
the society. An accused who allegedly misused his liberty by
committing the same offence, if allowed to roam free, will
undoubtedly be a threat to the society. Bail granted to such an
accused is liable to be cancelled, even if the subsequent crime/s
does not have the effect of interfering with the trial of the case
in which he was granted bail. Pertinent to note that, misuse of
liberty by the accused indulging in similar/other criminal
activity, finds a prominent place among the circumstances
justifying cancellation of bail enumerated in P. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra).
For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sj
