Court cannot cancel bail for violation of conditions without issuing notice, hearing accused: Kerala High Court

Bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled on account of violation of bail conditions, without issuing notice and giving the accused an opportunity to be heard, the Kerala High Court recently ruled [Muhammed Yasin v The Station House Officer & Anr.]. .Justice Kauser Edappagath held that orders cancelling bail that are issued without hearing the accused, cannot stand legally."When the cancellation of bail is sought either on the ground of post conduct of the accused like violation of the conditions of the bail or on the ground of the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the court must issue notice to the accused to explain why the bail granted to him should not be cancelled. He should also be given a fair opportunity of hearing. The order cancelling the bail unilaterally without hearing the accused cannot withstand (sic) legally," the Court said..The Court underscored that cancellation of bail is directly linked with personal liberty which is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Therefore, the Court observed that, “the bail once granted cannot be canceled in a mechanical manner without considering the post-bail conduct of the accused and whether any supervening circumstances have been rendered.”.The Court further added that giving notice to the affected party in order to present the cause against the proposed action, is a fundamental principle of natural justice.“It is the fundamental principle of natural justice that before any action is taken against an affected party, a notice must be given to him in order to present the cause against the proposed action.This cardinal rule of justice administration is espoused in the Latin maxim Audi alteram partem. It embodies the concept that no person should be condemned unheard. No decision should be taken by the court without hearing both sides,” the order stated..The Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by a fast track special court canceling the bail granted to an accused person without hearing him.The offences alleged against the petitioner were punishable under Sections 354A(I)(i) (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.The petitioner was arrested in June and granted bail in July this year, by the special court. The special court had also imposed certain bail conditions.Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application to cancel the bail on the ground that he had violated the following conditions - that he shall not see or communicate with the victim-child in any manner and that he shall not enter the locality where the victim-child resides.The court below, without giving notice to the petitioner or giving an opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the application, straight away allowed the application, canceled the bail, and also issued a non-bailable warrant.This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court..Justice Edappagath held that the finding of the court below, that no notice needs to be issued in a case where cancellation of bail is sought on the ground of violation of bail conditions, cannot be justified at all.Hence, the order of the special court was set aside and it was directed to reconsider the application for cancellation of bail after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to file an objection and be heard..The petitioner was represented by advocates Sunny Mathew, Nikitta Tressy George, Buhaira K K, Aadhal Thankachan and K Sujith. Senior Public Prosecutor TV Neema appeared for the respondent-State. .[Read Order]