The Allahabad High Court, on September 30, held that an accused person must be provided with an opportunity to be heard before cancelling his bail.

Bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava heard a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for which sought setting aside of order which cancelled bail of the accused.

The Court noted that, "The cancellation of bail is a serious matter and should be dealt with accordingly as the same concerns, the personal liberty of the persons who have been enlarged on bail."

The Court cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee vs. State of W.B. and Anr. (2004) 11 SCC 165, wherein it was pointed out as to what should be the approach of the court dealing with the matter of cancellation of bail. In that case, the High Court cancelled the bail which was earlier granted to the accused. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court has approached the case as if it is an appeal against the conviction by giving findings on factual issues which are yet to be decided.

Thus, the Supreme Court found the matter to be too premature which is likely to prejudice the trial. That apart, since the only ground on which the cancellation of bail could have been ordered being the ground of intimidation, the same was not satisfactorily proved. Therefore, in view of the Supreme Court, the High Court erred in cancelling the bail granted to the accused.

The Court held that, "this court finds the impugned order which came to be passed by the learned trial court without issuing notice to the applicants and without affording them a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing is patently illegal being in flagrant violation.."

The petition was henceforth allowed and the cancellation order was set aside.