Judgment : JANARTHANAM, J. ( 1 ) THE invoking of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sought for to set aside the order dated 18-4-l990oflearned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in Cr1. M. P. No. 556 of 1990 cancelling the bail. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 282/89 registered by the Inspector of Police, Suchindram, the respondent herein for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 I. P. C. and under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act They were ordered to be released on bail in Cr1. M. P. Nos. 1841, 1937 and 19530f 1989 respectively on 20-10-1989; 3110- 1989 and 2-11-1989 on condition that the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 should reside at Madurai and report before the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai daily at 10 A. M. and that the petitioners 3 and 5 should reside at Trichirapalli and report before the Judicial Magistrate, Trichy daily at 10. 00 A. M. The conditions so imposed appear to have been modified at different stages and finally by an order passed on 5-4-1990 in Cr1. M. P. No. 556 of 1990, the conditions imposed earlier were modified to the effect that they can enter the scene village and should report before the respondent daily at 10 A. M. and 5 P. M. until further orders. They did not appear to have adhered to the conditions so imposed and consequently the respondent filed a report as to such non-compliance and learned Sessions Judge, in turn issued a show-cause notice on 17-4-1990 to learned Counsel Mr. S. Robert, who appeared in the matter directing him to appear before him on or before 18-4-1990 and show cause why the bail granted to the petitioners should not be cancelled. Due deference to the notice so issued, learned Counsel appeared and represented that he was not in a position to state whether his clients had complied with the order of bail. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge, without issuance of any notice to the petitioners cancelled the bail granted to them and issued non-bailable warrant and directed the respondent to arrest and produce them before the committal Magistrate, giving rise to the present petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners would put forth the following submissions :The Court, which granted bail has no power to cancel the same SUO. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners would put forth the following submissions :The Court, which granted bail has no power to cancel the same SUO. MOTU without any application being taken in that regard by the prosecuting agency; Even otherwise; the cardinal principles of natural justice in giving an opportunity to a person before any order is passed against him, as adumbrated in the Latin maxim AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM shall be adhered to and such non-compliance is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law vitiating the order; and The order for grant of bail differs widely from its cancellation and the order of cancellation cannot so lightly be made unless there are overwhelming, impelling and impinging circumstances pointing out, that the person on bail, misused his liberty in such a way as to cause prejudice to the cause of justice in either issuing a threat to the witnesses not to depots against him or may attempt to tamper them. Learned Government Advocate would repel all those submissions. ( 4 ) THE first submissions, revolving on the question of the power of the Court, which granted bail to cancel the same, read in the pragmatic light of the salient and sanguine provisions adumbrated in Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) Cr1. P. C. and understood realistically, makes it incredible as not to be countenanced. The said provisions read as follows: 11437 (5 ). Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. 439 (2 ). A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. ( 5 ) A cursory perusal and reading of the provisions as extracted above would point out in a clear-cut fashion that the Court, which granted bail is possessed of the requisite power to cancel the same and order for the arrest of the person and commit him to custody. ( 5 ) A cursory perusal and reading of the provisions as extracted above would point out in a clear-cut fashion that the Court, which granted bail is possessed of the requisite power to cancel the same and order for the arrest of the person and commit him to custody. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel would, with all vehemence and force regarding the second submission, urge that it is the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that no order shall be passed to the prejudice of the person accused of an offence without giving him any opportunity therefore and for such a proposition, no authority is needed. The facts of the case, she would submit, would clinchingly point out that no show cause notice was ordered to the petitioners so as to hear their points of view in this matter before passing the order of cancellation of bail, though in fact a show cause notice was issued to learned Counsel, who happened to appear for the Petitioners and who expressed his inability to state as to whether they complied with the conditions or not or whether there were any justifiable circumstances impelling them not to comply with the conditions. She would rightly point out that the notice issued to Counsel, in such a situation, would not tantamount to issuance of a notice to the petitioners by giving them an opportunity to project their case and without they were being heard, it may not be legitimately permissible for learned Sessions Judge to come to any conclusion that the report submitted by the respondent-Inspector or Police is reflecting the real state of affairs, and that in such a situation, it cannot be stated that learned Sessions Judge had not abused his powers in ordering the cancellation of the bail. ( 7 ) LEANED Counsel also drew my attention to the decision in Gokul Das v. The State of Assam1, to highlight the point of giving an opportunity to the person accused of an offence for whose benefit the order of bail was made before the cancellation was resorted to. Learned K. N. Saikia, J. of Gauhati High Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Sanjay Gandhi2, laid down as follows: The considerations for cancellation of bail are slightly different from those for granting bail. Learned K. N. Saikia, J. of Gauhati High Court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Sanjay Gandhi2, laid down as follows: The considerations for cancellation of bail are slightly different from those for granting bail. Once an order for bail is passed, law immediately puts a protective ring around it so that it will not be cancelled without giving an opportunity to the person for whose benefit it was made. The aforesaid decision is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the order of learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail does not appear to be sound and consequently it is not sustainable in law. ( 8 ) AS to the third submission, learned Counsel would submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners did not comply with the conditions simpliciter and if such be the case, that by itself, is not sufficient for the cancellation of the bail earlier granted, unless there are circumstances pointing out that the petitioners were interfering with the course of justice either by threatening the witnesses not to depose against them or making an attempt to tamper them. My is also drawn to the decision in State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi3, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows: Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can, by and large, be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. The power to take back to custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. The power to take back to custody an accused who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care and circumspection. But the power, though of an extraordinary nature, it meant to be exercised in appropriate cases when, by a preponderance of probabilities it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses refusal to exercise that wholesome power in such cases, few though they may be, will reduce it to a dead letter and will suffer the Courts to be silent spectators to the subversion of the judicial process: The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court fits in nicely with the case on hand. ( 9 ) A perusal of the order of learned Sessions Judge would indicate that he was not, guided by the consideration of impinging circumstances warranting for the cancellation of the bail, but motivated by the signal circumstances of the gravity of the offences with which the petitioners were charges, which cannot, in the eye of law, form the foundation for the order of cancellation of bail. ( 10 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the order of learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail suffers from the vice-sheer abuse of process of law, warranting the same to be set aside. ( 11 ) IN the result the petition is allowed and the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 18-4-1990 in Cr1. M. P. No. 556/90 cancelling the bail is set aside but his order dated 5-4-1990 passed therein will stand. It is made clear that learned Sessions Judge is however free to cancel the bail either SUO MOTU or on an application moved by the prosecution, by giving adequate opportunities to the petitioners to represent their case provided there is existence of circumstances warranting for such cancellation under law. Petition allowed.