In the case of Navas v. State of Kerala, a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 aims to overturn a decision revoking the petitioner’s bail because of involvement in a future offence. In the current instance, the petitioner was the main defendant in a criminal case brought under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 for being discovered in possession of 40.5 kg of hidden ganja. becoming a party to a different crime. By decision dated 24-5-2022, he was given bail with the proviso that if he committed any other crimes while out on bail, the investigating officer could proceed with a court motion to have his bail revoked. On October 13, 2022, police received a tip and discovered the petitioner and three other people with 14.25 kg of marijuana and 850 g of hash oil while also allegedly carrying weapons. This discovery prompted the filing of a second case under Sections 20(b)(ii)B and 29 of the NDPS Act as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
As a result, the investigating officer applied for bail cancellation to the court within 5 months in accordance with the condition that was imposed by the court for a later offence. The Special Judge cancelled the petitioner’s bail after determining that there were sufficient grounds to suspect that the petitioner had abused his or her freedom.
whether the Special Judge was justified in revoking bail granted to the petitioner for abusing the freedom granted
Observation of the court
The Kerala High Court’s single-judge panel, led by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan, reaffirmed that engaging in a related crime while out on bail in an ongoing criminal case is a sufficient reason to revoke that bail.
According to Gurcharan Singh v. State, there is a fine line between “setting aside an unjustified, illegal order by a superior court” and “cancelling bail by Court based on the accused’s or because of some new facts requiring such intervention.” According to the court’s ruling, the State may ask the Superior Court under Section 439(2) of the CrPC to place the accused in custody in such cases if new circumstances develop. However, the State has the right to file a motion with the High Court rather than the same Court if it feels wronged by the grant of release in the absence of new circumstances.
The Special Judge’s decision to revoke the petitioner’s bail, because they were both implicated in another crime while they were out on bail was supported by the court. Further clarification was provided, stating that any request for regular bail made by the petitioner would be subject to the NDPS Act’s bail-grant guidelines.