ORDER :

1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1372 of 2022 of Sasthamcottah Police Station. He was granted bail in the aforesaid crime by this Court on 20.12.2022. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail after finding that the conditions imposed while granting bail were violated by the petitioner. In this proceeding, under section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner assails the order cancelling his bail.

2. Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences under sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), based on which Crime No.1372 of 2022 of the Sasthamcottah Police Station was registered (hereafter referred to as ‘the first crime’). By order dated 20.12.2022, in B.A. No.7367 of 2022, this Court granted bail to the petitioner. Five conditions were imposed while granting bail. The conditions included appearing before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays at 11 am till the filing of the final report, not entering the jurisdictional limits of Sasthamcottah Police Station for a period of one month except for complying with the condition of appearance before the Investigating Officer and also not to involve in any other crime while on bail.

3. Alleging that petitioner had committed a serious offence within nine days of obtaining bail in the first crime, the Sasthamcottah Police registered Crime No.1957 of 2022 (hereafter referred to as ‘the second crime’) alleging commission of offences under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341 and 307 read with section 34 of the IPC. In the second crime, petitioner, who is the first accused, is alleged to have brutally assaulted the defacto complainant on his head and face using a freewheel and inflicted grievous injuries including a fracture of the skull and deep incised wounds on the face. The injuries required 28 stitches on the head and 19 stitches on the face of the defacto complainant and the accused thus attempted to commit murder.

4. On 04.01.2023, an application was filed by the SHO, Sasthamcottah Police Station, seeking to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. Petitioner is alleged to have violated the conditions of bail since (i) he failed to appear before the Investigating Officer as directed, (ii) he involved himself in the second crime, and (iii) for committing the second crime, he entered into the limits of Sasthamcottah Police Station. When petitioner was apprehended in the second crime, the notice for cancellation of bail was served on him in the prison. Thereafter a detailed objection was filed by the counsel for the petitioner on 09.02.2023. However, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner.

5. Sri.K.R.Vinod, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to object to the application for cancellation of bail, as he was only served with a notice and that he was not given sufficient opportunity to file an objection, after proper consultation with his advocate. It was further submitted that as per the judgment in XI, Victim SC No.211 of 2018 of POCSO Court v. State of Kerala and Others (2019 (3) KHC 26), this Court had specifically directed a summary enquiry to be conducted before cancelling the bail and in the absence of such an enquiry, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was vitiated. It was also submitted that if a proper enquiry as contemplated under law was carried out, petitioner could have convinced the court that he was falsely framed in the second crime and that none of the circumstances for cancellation of the bail exist.

6. Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that proper notice was served on the petitioner, as directed by the court and pursuant to the notice, an objection was also filed through the counsel and the learned Magistrate had heard the case on four different posting dates and it was thereafter that the bail