‘Order passed in absence of accused’: Supreme Court sets aside order cancelling anticipatory bail

The bail conditions imposed on the accused required him to report to the police station on every Monday. The anticipatory bail was cancelled by the high court after it was pointed out that the accused was not attending the Police Station as directed.

At the outset the Supreme Court noted that the anticipatory bail was cancelled ex-parte, as no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court.

“A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High court shows that the anticipatory bail has been cancelled ex-parte, as no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court on that date,” the court noted.

While explaining the absence of petitioner during the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for cancellation of bail filed by the state was to be tagged along with the application in question where the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

It was pointed out that two applications were filed for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. One by the complainant and another by the State. The petitioner claimed that he had been appearing in the other application filed for cancellation of bail.

Considering that the order was passed ex-parte, the court set aside the bail cancellation order and remitted the case back to the high court.

“Be that as it may, as the order was passed in the absence of the petitioner, we set aside the same and remit the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration, after hearing both the parties,” the court said.

It further added that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the petitioner shall stand restored.