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