Bail cancellation requires due procedure under BNSS, notice, and exceptional circumstances; suo motu action on misrepresentation invalid.

O R D E R

The present application has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in Crl.M.P.No.778 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2026.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has filed an application for relaxation of the condition imposed on him in the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, was of the view that after complying with the condition for a period of 14 days, the petitioner had misrepresented before the police that he need not comply with the condition as the condition was modified to sign only once in a week, whereas factually no such order has been passed either by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, or by any other Court.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is a misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, that by itself is not a ground to cancel the bail suo motu, as cancellation of bail has to be dealt with under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C., equivalent to the provisions under 483(3) BNSS. Therefore, unless the respondent police file an appropriate application, and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, the cancellation of bail on the ground of alleged misrepresentation is nothing but an infringement upon the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prayed to allow this application.

4. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 Live Law (SC) 956 ( Bhuri Bai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in 2024 (1) AICLR 1049 ( Chinmaya Sahu Vs. State of Orissa ) and the order of the learned Single Judge in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21338 of 2018 dated 22.02.2019 ( The State through the Inspector of Police, Keeramangalam Police Station, Pudukottai District Vs. Selvaraj and others ).

5. The said contentions were strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, who would submit that when the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, came to know about the misrepresentation committed by the petitioner, the Court is competent to cancel the bail. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2011) 1 SCC 694 ( Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others ) and also the judgment in (1996) 3 SCC 364 ( State Bank of Patiala and Others Vs. S.K. Sharma ) and would contend that when the petitioner/accused is before the Court, the question of separately giving notice does not arise. Hence, he justified the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.318 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026, directing the petitioner to appear and sign before the respondent police station daily at 9.00 a.m. until further orders. Admittedly, the petitioner complied with the condition only for 14 days. It is also an admitted fact that he moved a relaxation petition on 06.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.778 of 2026, wherein the respondent informed the Court that the petitioner had misr