Kerala High Court
Sadique P vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
Crl.M.C.No.5149/25
1
2025:KER:50844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5149 OF 2025
CRIME NO.39/2024 OF Manjeri Excise Range Office,
Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2025 IN CRMP
NO.429 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST
SC/ST), MANJERI
PETITIONER:
SADIQUE P
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O
MOIDEEN,PALASSERY(HO),KAVUMBARAM(PO),MALAPPURAM
DIST, PIN - 676552
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.DEVESH
SRI.M.ANUROOP
SHRI.MURSHID ALI M.
SMT.JYOTHIS MARY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C.No.5149/25
2
2025:KER:50844
2 EXCISE INSPECTOR
EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 676121
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SANAL. P. RAJ, PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.5149/25
3
2025:KER:50844
V.G.ARUN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.M.C.No.5149 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.39/2024 of
Excise Range Office, Manjeri registered for the offence
punishable under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act. The crime was
registered alleging that, on 23.07.2024, at about 7:25 PM, the
accused was found transporting 2.775 grams of
Methamphetamine. The petitioner was arrested on the spot
and was granted bail as per Annexure A1 order of this Court
dated 24.09.2024. While granting bail to the petitioner, the
High Court imposed various conditions, including the condition
that he shall not involve in any other crime while on bail and
added a rider that if the conditions are violated, the
jurisdictional court will be empowered to consider the
2025:KER:50844
application for cancellation of bail, if any filed. In violation of
the conditions, the petitioner got implicated as an accused in
Crime No.479 of 2025 registered at the Manjeri Police Station
for offences under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act on
the allegation that on 03.04.2025 at 01:15 pm, the petitioner
along with the other accused, were found in possession of 3.25
grams of Methamphetamine. The petitioner was arrested on the
same day and granted bail as per Annexure A2 order of this
Court dated 03.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the investigating
officer in the first crime filed an application seeking
cancellation of petitioner's bail, alleging that he had
consciously violated the bail condition by getting arrayed as the
accused in Crime No.479 of 2025. By the impugned Annexure
A3 order, the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act
Cases, Manjeri cancelled the petitioner's bail. Hence, this
Crl.M.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
court below committed gross illegality in mechanically
2025:KER:50844
cancelling petitioner's bail without considering the facts in the
real perspective. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in
Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2025 KHC
7157], it is contended that bail once granted cannot be
cancelled unless the conduct of the appellant post grant of bail
has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. The
decision in Godson & Another v. State of Kerala [2022 (2)
KHC 672] to contend that the power to cancel bail can be
exercised only when the court is convinced of an attempt to
interfere with the administration of justice or the trial of the
case.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that, when an
accused is granted liberty subject to certain conditions, he is
bound to strictly abide by the conditions. If he misuses that
liberty and commits another crime, that, by itself, is sufficient
reason to cancel the bail. This aspect is laid down by the
Supreme Court in P v. State of Madhya Pradesh And
Another [2022 KHC 6496]. It is further submitted that by
2025:KER:50844
repeatedly committing crimes involving commercial quantity of
drugs, the petitioner has proved himself to be a threat to the
society.
4. The legal position that consideration for grant of bail
and its cancellation are entirely different, and bail once granted
can be cancelled only for cogent reasons, needs no reiteration
in view of the law declared by the Apex Court through various
decisions, including Dolat Ram and Others v. State of
Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349]. Bail once granted can normally
be cancelled only if there is an interference or attempt to
interfere with due course of justice, abuse of the concession of
bail or when the bail order is found to be perverse and based on
irrelevant considerations. As contended by the learned Public
Prosecutor, 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 and Another (supra).
5. Even if such circumstances exits, the court below is
2025:KER:50844
bound to make a preliminary enquiry as to the truth or
otherwise of the allegations in the 2nd crime. The legal position
in this regard is laid down by this Court in XI, Victim SC
No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court v. State of Kerala and
Others [2019 (3) KHC 26], the relevant portion of which is
extracted below;
" 9. But in a case where the victim or the witnesses specifically
complains of threat and intimidation and the said aspects are
projected either by victim or by the prosecution before the Bail
Court through an application as referred to in Ext.P-5, then it is
bounden duty of the Bail Court to consider the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations in a summary manner after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the prosecution as
well as to the affected accused concerned whose bail is ought
to be cancelled and if possible to the victim as well, in a case
like this. In such process of enquiry, the Bail Court could call for
the records if any in relation to those allegations and if a
separate crime has been registered in that regard, the records
in those crimes should also be perused by the Bail Court in
order to make an enquiry in a summary manner as to the truth
or otherwise of the allegations therein, and after affording
2025:KER:50844
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the prosecution,
accused and the victim, the Bail Court is expected to discharge
its solemn duty and function to decide on the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations in such a summary manner and the
evidentiary assessment thereof could be on the basis of the
overall attendant circumstances as well as the attendant
balance of probabilities of the case. Based on such a process,
the Bail Court is obliged to take a decision whether the bail
conditions have been so violated and if it is so found that the
bail conditions has been violated then it is the duty of the Bail
Court to cancel the bail, but certainly after hearing the affected
party as aforestated. So also, if the said enquiry process reveals
that the truth of the abovesaid allegations has not been
established in a convincing manner in such enquiry process,
then the Bail Court is to dismiss the application to cancel the
bail. But the Bail Court cannot evade from the responsibility by
taking up the specious plea that since the very same
allegations also form subject matter of a distinct crime then the
truth or otherwise of the allegations is to be decided by the
Criminal Court which is seisin of that crime through the process
of finalisation of said impugned criminal proceedings by the
conduct and completion of trial therein."
6. The following erudite exposition in Kailash Kumar
2025:KER:50844
(supra) makes the position even more clear;
"13.Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right
under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty
is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid
reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any
material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant
post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his
liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or
threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence.
Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to
procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence."
7. In the instant case also, the above factors are not seen
considered by the Special Judge. On the other hand, the learned
Judge proceeded to cancel the bail on finding the bail condition to
have been violated. Being so, the challenge against the impugned
order can only be upheld.
8. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the impugned
order, set aside. The Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act and
NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri is directed to reconsider Crl.M.P.No.
429 of 2025 in Crime No.39 of 2024 and pass a fresh reasoned
2025:KER:50844
order as expeditiously as possible, adverting to the observations
herein and the cited precedents.
9. The impugned order having thus been set aside, the
petitioner is liable to be enlarged on bail. However, in view of the
petitioner's involvement in the second crime, the bail bond is to be
increased. Accordingly, the following direction is issued;
The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a
personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), in
addition to the bond already executed in compliance of the
conditions imposed in the original order granting bail.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
sj
2025:KER:50844
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-09-
Annexure A2 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-06-
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-05-2025
IN CRL MP NO. 429/2025 ON THE FILES OF
THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT &
NDPS ACT CASES, MANJERI
