IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Bala @ Balasubramaniyan ... Petitioner Vs.

State repesented by The Inspector of Police/S.H.O, E5 Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to call for the records relating to the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri in Crl.M.P.No.1251 of 2025 in Crime No.492 of 2025 on the file of E5 Sholavaram Police Station and set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner and allow the above Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vetrivel For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1251 of 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, wherein the bail granted to the petitioner herein has been cancelled for the reason that the petitioner has not complied the bail condition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was not served with any notice and based on the endorsement made by the learned counsel who has filed memo of appearance at the time of furnishing the sureties, order has been passed, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Since no notice was served on the petitioner, he was not able to put forth his facts. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

3. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was not served with any notice prior to cancellation of bail ordered. It is stated that the learned counsel on record, who filed memo of appearance for furnishing sureties was served with notice of hearing. This Court is of the view that the advocate, who has received the copy of notice of hearing shall get instructions from the petitioner and reply shall be filed before the learned Magistrate. But records shows that except serving notice of hearing to the counsel, no separate notice to petitioner is served and now the petitioner claims that he has not been intimated about the filing of the petition for cancellation of bail. In the impugned order, there is no indication regarding service of notice or filing of the reply by the petitioner.

5. Under such circumstances the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is mere probable to show that he has not aware about the impugned order passed therein, I am of the view that, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to submit his reply in the petition for cancellation of bail and fresh orders have to be passed accordingly.

6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate with direction to rehear the matter after serving notice on the bail petitioner in person. The petitioner is also directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 10.03.2025 and produced the copy of this order.

17.02.2026 ssi K.RAJASEKAR, J.

ssi To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri.

2.The Inspector of Police/S.H.O, E5 Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

17.02.2026