Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 460

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER PETITIONERS;
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4178 OF 1999T, DECIDED ON MARCH 13,2000
ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
AWANISH SINHA AND HIMANSHU SHEKHAR, ADVOCATES, FOR THE PETITIONERS;
B.B. SINGH, S.K. SINHA AND MS SINDHU PRABHA JHA, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
AWANISH SINHA AND HIMANSHU SHEKHAR, ADVOCATES, FOR THE PETITIONERS;
B.B. SINGH, S.K. SINHA AND MS SINDHU PRABHA JHA, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

Accused are entitled to a hearing before their bail is cancelled.

Headnote:
Bail Cancellation - Notice - Accused entitled to hearing before bail is cancelled
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are the accused, were aggrieved by the cancellation of their bail without being served a notice.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused are entitled to a hearing before their bail is cancelled and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter.
Issues: The issue was whether the accused were served a notice before the cancellation of their bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused are entitled to a hearing before their bail is cancelled, and the process server's report indicating service of notice was not sufficient.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the petition accordingly, directing the High Court to fix a further date of hearing and pass appropriate orders.

ORDER

1. THE 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 SERVER HAS INDICATED THAT THERE HAS BEEN SERVICE OF NOTICE INASMUCH AS THE ACCUSED PERSONS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. BUT, THAT REPORT E 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 F APPEAR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT ON 3-4-2000 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.

COURT MASTERS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document