KEWAL SINGH RANDHAWA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case Complaint Case No. NACT-358 of 2016, dated 01.09.2016, titled as 'Harmail Singh Versus Kewal Singh Randhawa' filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 pending before SDJM Amloh. Notice of motion. On the asking of this Court, Mrs. Anu Chatrath, Addl. AG, Punjab,who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner remained absent on one date and therefore, his bail bonds were cancelled. Consequently, the bail granted to him was cancelled and his bail bonds were forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through nonbailable warrants of arrest. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. At the time of dealing with the bail and cancellation of bail, the court has to keep in mind the following principles of criminal jurisprudence:-

(3.) Although, under the provisions of Section 437(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate has got power to cancel the bail yet it is well settled law that before passing such an order, the learned magistrate is required to issue notice to the accused so as to afford him an opportunity to explain as to why the bail should not be cancelled but such course has not been adopted by learned magistrate in the case in hand, therefore, it is on this ground alone, the impugned order to the extent of cancellation of bail deserves to be set aside.