Cancellation of bail must be made by giving notice to the accused and allowing him to be heard, as established by legal principles.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Ss. 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P.C.') is directed against the Order, dtd. 5/1/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1156 of 2023 in S.C.No.55 of 2021 on the file of Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for the trial of offences against Women, Anantapuramu (for short, 'the trial Court') wherein allowing the petition filed under Sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. and cancelled the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.880 of 2020 in Crime No.02 of 2020, dtd. 2/11/2020 to the petitioner/accused.

2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order came to be passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed a copy of the docket sheet, which shows that the case was made over to the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, it was received by the said Court on 30/12/2023, and the matter was posted to 2/1/2024; on 2/1/2024, the matter was adjourned for hearing of the Special Public Prosecutor and for filing counter, subsequently it was posted to 4/1/2024; on 4/1/2024, the trial Court observed that no counter was filed and it treated as no counter. Finally, on 5/1/2024, the trial Court passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice was ordered to the petitioner, it seems that the defence counsel had taken the notice, but he had not appeared, and also, no counter was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that consequent to the cancellation of the bail, the accused was arrested on 19/1/2024 and he was remanded to Sub-Jail, Bukkarayasamudram. Since then, he has been in Sub-Jail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Mehboob Dawood Shaik vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 2 SCC 362, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"8. It is, therefore, clear that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision reported in Gurdev Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 13 SCC 286, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that cancellation of bail cannot done without giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of being heard.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision reported in P.K. Shaji alias Thammanam Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"6.xxx. As a general proposition, the plea raised by the appellant is correct. It is equally true that the accused who is on bail, should be heard before an order of cancellation of bail is passed by the Court. This Court in Gurdev Singh v. State of Bihar held that the accused must be given notice and opportunity of hearing before the bail granted to him is cancelled."

8. It is settled law that cancellation of the bail can only be made by giving notice to the accused and allowing him to be heard. Thus, the accused must be heard before his bail is cancelled. The impugned order shows that such an opportunity of hearing was not given to the accused. In the event of failure of the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the trial Court could have taken steps to provide Legal Aid counsel on behalf of the accused. The impugned order clearly shows that the bail was granted to the accused vide Order, dtd. 2/11/2020 in Crl.M.P.No.880 of 2020 in Crime No.02 of 2020, which was cancelled vide Ord