An accused must be afforded the opportunity to be heard before a court cancels bail, violating natural justice principles if not provided.

JUDGMENT :

MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Kasganj in Session Trial No. 173 of 2022 ( State vs. Ram Niwas and Another ) relating to crime number 0033 of 2022 under section 302 IPC, P.S. Sahavar District Kasganj. By the impugned order, the learned trial court cancelled the bail and the revisionists were sent to Jail.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the they were granted bail by this court vide its order dated 15.11.2022, 18.11.2022 and 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47180 of 2022, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22379 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44615 of 2022. During the trial, the revisionists did not misuse the liberty of bail.

3. During the trial, two prosecution witnesses were examined by prosecution such as PW1 Ranjeet Kumar and PW2 Jai Prakash. Both the witnesses were declared hostile since they did not support the version of the prosecution. Statement of PW3 Manoj was recorded on 05.07.2023. He also did not support the prosecution version and was thus declared as hostile.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that on 19.07.2023, when the cross examination of PW3 Manoj was recorded he stated that he had given his earlier statement according to his free will. Later on, he stated that he was pressurized by the accused namely Sunil, Ram Niwas and Satendra. Further this witness, while replying to the question asked by the learned trial court, stated that accused Ram Niwas, Satendra and Sunil threatened him to testify properly. The learned trial court suo motto proceeded to cancel the bail of the accused/revisionists while no application was moved by the prosecution to cancel the bail earlier granted to the revisionists. The revisionists did not temper the evidence which is apparent by the evidence of all the three witnesses examined so far by the prosecution.

5. The learned counsel for the revisionists argued that learned trial Court was duty bound to afford an opportunity of hearing or to issue a show cause notice to them as to why their bail should not be cancelled before proceeding to cancel the bail. The learned trial court arbitrarily acted and proceeded to cancel the bail granted to the revisionist by this Court. He further submitted that the learned trial Court did not adhere the settled proposition of law that an accused is to be heard necessarily before his bail is cancelled. Thus the trial court has violated the principle of natural justice. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is perverse and against the settled principles of law therefore it is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated that as per the statement of PW3 Manoj Kumar, it was concluded by the learned trial court that PW3 Manoj Kumar has deposed under the pressure of the revisionist since he was threatened by them to testify properly. As a result of this, he did not support the version of the prosecution and turned hostile. However learned AGA did not controvert the preposition of law that an accused is to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before his bail is cancelled.

7. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

8. The perusal of the record goes to show that vide the impugned order the learned trial Court opined that the revisionists has misused the liberty of bail. The statement of PW3 Manoj Kumar was recorded on 05.07.2023. On the next date i.e. on 19.07.2022, he stated that earlier he gave hi