ORDER : 1. This application is directed against the order dated 26.08.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 203/2009 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla whereby the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that out of 16 accused only one was physically present and of the rest 15, except the petitioner, were represented under Section 317 Cr. P.C. That the learned counsel for the petitioner did not file the representation under Section 317. On the contrary he submitted that he was not taking any steps in the case on behalf of the petitioner, whereupon the court has cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was under the bona-fide belief that the Advocate engaged by him would be taking proper steps on his behalf as he had not revoked the vakalatnama given by him to the concerned Advocate. It is submitted that the court below without noticing the petitioner or issuing any direction for appearance of the petitioner cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner merely on the submission of the counsel. The court should have appreciated that there was no willful default on the part of the petitioner and the learned Advocate should have informed the petitioner that he would not be representing him in the case. On the above grounds it is argued that the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 3. Learned A.P.P. while opposing, has not controverted the fact that it was due to non-representation of the case by the Advocate of the petitioner that the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled. 4. Heard. Perused the impugned order. Evidently, the Advocate, who was holding the brief on behalf of petitioner, has not stated before the court that he had given no objection or informed the petitioner that he would not conduct the case of petitioner rather without assigning any reason he submitted that henceforth he will not conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the Advocate to inform the petitioner that he would not represent him in court and the petitioner is at liberty to engage some other counsel. Apparently no reason has been assigned as to why the Advocate declined to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the Advocate to inform the petitioner that he would not represent him in court and the petitioner is at liberty to engage some other counsel. Apparently no reason has been assigned as to why the Advocate declined to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioner. The court below in such fact situation should have noticed the petitioner to be present in the court with a direction that if appropriate steps would not be taken by the petitioner necessary order would be passed. The court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to engage another counsel by taking notice that there was no intentional or willful default on the part of the petitioner who was under the bona-fide belief that the Advocate would be taking appropriate steps on his behalf in the case. 5. In the attending facts and circumstances the order of cancellation of bail bond without issuing any notice is curtailment of the right of the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently the impugned order is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear in the court below within three weeks from the date of this order and on his filing an application the learned trial court shall enlarge him on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Complaint Case No. 203/2009. 6. Let this order be communicated through Fax at the cost of the petitioner.