Bail Can't Be Cancelled Without Giving Notice To Accused, Giving Him An Opportunity Of Being Heard: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the cancellation of bail cannot be done without giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of being heard. With this, the bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I sets aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Raebareli cancelling the bail granted earlier to Rajendra Kumar and 2 others in connection with a...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the cancellation of bail cannot be done without giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of being heard.
With this, the bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I sets aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Raebareli cancelling the bail granted earlier to Rajendra Kumar and 2 others in connection with a criminal case.
The High Court noted that the impugned order cancelling the bail was passed without issuing notice to the applicants/accused and without affording them a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing and the same was patently illegal being in flagrant violation of Supreme Court rulings.
In this regard, the Court referred to Apex Court's rulings in the cases of Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee vs. State of W.B. and another (2004) 11 SCC 165, Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 SCC 362, and P.K. Shaji alias Thammanam Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2005) 13 SCC 283.
Essentially, in the instant case, the applicants/accused were granted bail vide by the Sessions Judge, Raebareli on November 22, 2021. However, the court was later informed that the accused allegedly threatened the witnesses and the complainant to desist from prosecuting the case after being granted bail.
Therefore, finding that the aforesaid conduct of the applicants was violative of the conditions of bail subject to which they were enlarged on bail, the trial court directed that the applicants be taken into custody and also passed the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the applicants.
Challenging the order, the Applicants moved the Court arguing that in this case, their bail was cancelled without giving them any opportunity of being heard.
In view of this, the Court, at the outset noted that it is a settled law that once bail has been granted by a competent court after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstance(s) which are not conducive to the fair trial.
"It cannot be cancelled on a prayer or request from the side of the complainant/ investigating agency/ victim, unless and until, it is shown to the satisfaction of the court concerned that the same is being misused and is no longer conducive, in the interest of justice, to allow the accused persons any further to remain on bail. No doubt, the bail can be cancelled only in those discerning few cases where it is established that a person to whom the concession of bail has been granted, is misusing the same," the Court further remarked as it set aside the impugned order and directed to release the applicants after obtaining the fresh personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
However, the Court did make it clear that trial court would be at liberty to issue notice to the applicants stating therein the grounds which are to be considered by it for cancellation of bail granted to the applicants.
Case title - Rajendra Kumar And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home And Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6779 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 455