Bail Can’t Be Cancelled Without Giving Notice To Accused, Giving Him An Opportunity Of Being Heard: Allahabad High...
The principle that:
“Bail can’t be cancelled without giving notice to the accused and giving him an opportunity of being heard”,
as upheld by the Allahabad High Court, along with relevant case laws and legal reasoning
🔹 Principle:
Cancellation of bail cannot be done ex parte. The accused must be given:
Prior notice, and
A fair opportunity to be heard before the court decides to cancel their bail.
This is in line with the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
🔹 Legal Basis:
📘 Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
“The High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.”
However, the power under Section 439(2) CrPC must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily.
🔹 Key Legal Principles:
1. Audi Alteram Partem – “Hear the other side”
This is a foundational principle of natural justice.
No adverse order (like bail cancellation) can be passed without giving the affected person (the accused) a chance to be heard.
2. Distinction Between Grant and Cancellation of Bail:
Grant of bail is based on the presumption of innocence and considerations like flight risk, tampering of evidence, etc.
Cancellation of bail is not merely a re-evaluation of the original bail order but requires new circumstances or misuse of liberty.
🔹 Judicial Reasoning by Allahabad High Court:
In multiple decisions, including the recent one you're referring to, the Allahabad High Court has held that:
Cancelling bail without notice to the accused violates natural justice.
Even if the bail was wrongly granted, it cannot be cancelled behind the back of the accused.
The accused must be given a chance to explain, defend, or justify their conduct post-bail.
🔹 Important Case Laws Supporting This View:
1. Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) – Supreme Court
The SC held that cancellation of bail is a serious matter, and unless the accused misuses the liberty, bail should not be cancelled.
Importantly, the court noted that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before cancellation.
2. Ravi Yadav v. State of Bihar (2014) – Supreme Court
The SC ruled that even in cases where bail was improperly granted, the accused must be heard before cancelling the bail.
3. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) – Constitution Bench, SC
Though focused on anticipatory bail, the Court emphasized that liberty once granted should not be taken away casually or without hearing.
4. Allahabad High Court Rulings:
The Court has repeatedly held that bail cannot be revoked by the court suo motu or on an application, without giving notice to the accused.
Such cancellation would be void and illegal.
🔹 Practical Implications:
| Issue | Legal Requirement |
|---|---|
| Can bail be cancelled ex parte? | ❌ No. Notice and hearing are mandatory. |
| Grounds for cancellation? | ✅ Misuse of liberty, new facts, breach of conditions. |
| Requirement of hearing? | ✅ Mandatory before any adverse order. |
| If cancelled without notice? | ❌ Order is liable to be quashed. |
🔹 Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Section 439(2) CrPC – power to cancel bail |
| Procedural Safeguard | Notice and opportunity to the accused is mandatory |
| Natural Justice Principle | Audi alteram partem – right to be heard |
| Key Cases | Dolat Ram (1995), Ravi Yadav (2014), Gurbaksh Singh (1980), Allahabad HC rulings |
| Without hearing = Invalid | Any cancellation without notice violates constitutional safeguards |
🔚 Conclusion:
The Allahabad High Court rightly held that no court can cancel bail without issuing notice to the accused and providing an opportunity to be heard. This upholds the rule of law, natural justice, and personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution. Even where bail has been wrongly granted, due process must be followed before revoking it.
RELATED Blog
0 comments