Cancellation of bail without a hearing violates the principle of natural justice and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.

O R D E R

Dated this the 23^rd day of December, 2022 This is a most unfortunate case where an accused who was granted statutory bail by the Special Court exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was arrested and committed to custody after cancelling his bail even without hearing him. He is languishing in jail for the last three months.

2. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.222/2020 on the files of Fast Track Special Court - Kalpetta, Wayanad (for short, 'the court below'). He was granted statutory bail by the court below. Thereafter, the court below cancelled his bail on the ground that he violated the bail condition that he shall not influence the witnesses. In fact, a report on NBW filed by the investigating officer was treated by the court below as a proceedings for cancellation of bail. The bail was cancelled even without issuing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has now approached this court to quash the order cancelling his bail invoking jurisdiction vested with this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The court below has committed serious illegality in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner without hearing him. The cancellation of bail is directly linked with personal liberty which is one of the cherished constitutional freedom guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This court in Muhammed Yasin v. Station House Officer [ 2022(6)KLT 630 ] has held that, when the cancellation of bail is sought either on the ground of post conduct of the accused like violation of the conditions of the bail or on the ground of the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the court must issue notice to the accused to explain why the bail granted to him should not be cancelled. It was further held that, the order cancelling the bail unilaterally without hearing the accused cannot withstand legally.

5. It is pertinent to note that the order impugned in the above decision was also passed by the very same judge who passed the impugned order in this case.

6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. The court below shall reconsider the proceedings initiated for cancellation of bail after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file an objection and for hearing. The petitioner shall be released from judicial custody forthwith.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Special Judge for future compliance in similar matters. This Crl.M.C.is disposed of.