1. Petitioners challenge the cancellation of bail on the grounds of non-service of notice. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 550
2000(6) Supreme 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
Gurdev Singh & Anr. -Petitioners
versus
State of Bihar & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4178 of 1999
Decided on 13-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Awanish Sinha, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. B.B. Singh, Mr. S.K. Sinha, Mrs. Sindhu Prabha Jha, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Accused is entitled to hearing before bail granted to him is cancelled.
Accused is entitled to hearing before bail granted to him is cancelled.
Subject
Bail - Cancellation of Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439 - Cancellation of Bail -Prior notice to the accused is necessary - Notice to cancel bail returned unserved as accused refused to receive same - The report cannot be sacrosanct that the accused is entitled to hearing before the bail is cancelled-Accused already before the court through counsel- No notice therefore required- Accused directed to appear before the High Court which shall pass appropriate order after hearing. [Paras 2 and 3]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege lack of notice; State submits that accused are entitled to a hearing before bail cancellation despite reports of refusal to accept notice. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Reports indicating refusal to accept notice are not sacrosanct, and the accused must be granted a hearing before bail is cancelled. (Para 2 )
4. An accused person is entitled to a hearing before the cancellation of bail. (Para 2 )
5. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for reconsideration. (Para 3 )
6. Is a hearing mandatory before the cancellation of bail?
Yes, the court held that the accused is entitled to a hearing before bail is cancelled, noting that reports of refusal to accept notice are not sacrosanct. (Para 2 )
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused who are aggrieved by the order of cancellation of their bail, on the ground that even before cancellation of bail, no notice was served upon them.
2. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, says that no doubt the process served has indicated that there has been service of notice inasmuch as the accused - persons refused to accept the same. But, that report cannot be sacrosanct and the accused is entitled to hearing before the bail is cancelled.
3. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper to direct the High Court for reconsideration of the matter. Since the accused are already before us through Counsel, no notice need be served upon them. They shall appear before the High Court on 3rd April, 2000 on which date the High Court shall fix further date of hearing and pass appropriate orders. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and dispose of this petition accordingly.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
**************
