Gurdev Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4178/1999
Petitioner: Gurdev Singh & Anr.
Respondent: State of Bihar & Anr.
Apeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4178/1999
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 13, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Awanish Sinha, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates for the Petitioner(s) .
Mr. B.B. Singh, Mr. S.K. Sinha, Mrs. Sindhu Prabha Jha, Advocates for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439 – Cancellation of bail – Service of notice before cancellation – Refusal shown – Plea of no service. Held that accused are entitled to the hearing. No further notice. Direction to appear and matter to be heard. (Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Petitioners are the accused who are aggrieved by the order of cancellation of their bail, on the ground that even before can-cellation of bail, no notice was served upon them.
2. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, says that no doubt the process served has indicated that there has been service of notice inasmuch as the accused – persons re-fused to accept the same. But, that report cannot be sacrosanct and the accused is entitled to hearing before the bail is can-celled.
3. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper to direct the High Court for reconsideration of the matter. Since the accused are already before us through Counsel, no notice need be served upon them. They shall appear before the High Court on 3rd April, 2000 on which date the High Court shall fix further date of hearing and pass appropriate orders. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and dispose of this petition according-ly.
1. Petitioners are the accused who are aggrieved by the order of cancellation of their bail, on the ground that even before can-cellation of bail, no notice was served upon them.
2. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, says that no doubt the process served has indicated that there has been service of notice inasmuch as the accused – persons re-fused to accept the same. But, that report cannot be sacrosanct and the accused is entitled to hearing before the bail is can-celled.
3. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper to direct the High Court for reconsideration of the matter. Since the accused are already before us through Counsel, no notice need be served upon them. They shall appear before the High Court on 3rd April, 2000 on which date the High Court shall fix further date of hearing and pass appropriate orders. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and dispose of this petition according-ly.
