JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent State. Perused the record. 2. At this, stage, without entering into the minute details of the factual scenario against the applicant including different charges levelled against him in different complaints, this revision application can be disposed of on technical grounds only. 3. It is undisputed fact that impugned order dated 24.11.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1483 of 2017 is disposing of such application within a period of four days, since, such application is preferred only on 20.11.2017. It is also undisputed fact that Investigation Officer has preferred such application only on 24.11.2017, copy of such application is at Annexure E (page no.29) which is numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No.1515 of 2017. It is undisputed fact that there is an order below such application only on 21.11.2017 by Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court to the effect that “notice to P.P. returnable on 23.11.2017.” It is also undisputed fact that as per Annexure E (page no.33) Police Inspector of C Division City Police Station, Jamnagar has submitted before the Registrar of Sessions Court, Jamnagar that notice of application has been served upon present applicant. However, date, time and to whom such notice is served is not disclosed. Such fact is found from copy of the notice which is at page nos.32 and 33, which makes it clear that notice is served probably on 25.11.2017 and that is not served directly upon the present applicant Jayesh @ Jaysukh Mulji Patel @ Ranpariya. Thereafter, the Sessions Court has proceeded further in application and allowed application by impugned judgment and order on the same date i.e. 24.11.2017 whereby, order of bail granted in favour of the present applicant has been cancelled. 4. At this stage, because of above irregularity, considering the fact that in criminal proceedings notice must be served upon concerned person and more particularly on the accused in person only when he is available at particular place. In the present case, there was no necessity for the Sessions Court to decide such application in such haste, when it is already disclosed before the Court that applicant herein is in judicial custody at Mumbai for some other offences. In the present case, there was no necessity for the Sessions Court to decide such application in such haste, when it is already disclosed before the Court that applicant herein is in judicial custody at Mumbai for some other offences. In that case, this Court should have simply conveyed that Judicial Authority not to release the applicant without further order by this Court and should have allowed the applicant – accused to submit his case when application is for cancellation of bail. In view of above irregularity, at this stage, I do not wish to discuss factual details based upon which bail has been cancelled and therefore, now though impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside, the Sessions Court is directed to decide such Criminal Misc. Application No.1483 of 2017 afresh preferably within 30 days after offering reasonable opportunity to the applicant to represent his case. For the purpose, applicant shall file his appearance before the Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1483 of 2017 on or before 18.01.2018. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the factual details and merits of the impugned order and therefore, it would be appropriate for the Trial Court to decide it in accordance with law and as per available evidence on record with a condition that before passing any such order, applicant must be heard. 6. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. This Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.