MADAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Ram Awatar Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Madan Mahto was admitted to bail after his detention for more than a month by the order of the Sessions Judge, Giridih in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 287 of 2002 for the alleged offence under Section 413/414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act on 20.1.2003 after hearing the learned APP as well. But his bail was cancelled on the subsequent date i.e. on 21.1.2003 without giving notice to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had sworn false affidavit that no anticipatory or regular bail petition was earlier filed on his behalf either before the Sessions Judge, Giridih or before the High Court nor the same was pending any where else but, as a matter of fact, a bail petition No. 1107 of 2002 was filed on his behalf which was pending for disposal in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in which the learned Court below called for the case diary. On the basis of the submission and fact being pointed out by the learned APP bail granted to the petitioner in B.P No. 55 of 2003 was cancelled by order dated 21.1.2003.

(2.) MR . Sharma submitted that the cancellation order passed by the Sessions Judge, on 21.1.2003 is illegal and unsustainable since no opportunity was accorded to the petitioner to show his cause. The petitioner is an illiterate and rustic Mazdoor who soon after filing and presenting the bail bond after the bail order was passed by the Sessions Judge had gone out for the livelihood. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge after application of his judicial mind and upon being satisfied had granted bail to the petitioner.