Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2300 of 2025 Kalu @ Kalandi Bhola ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Devashis Panda -versus- State Of Odisha ..... Opp. Party Represented By Adv. – B.K. Sahu, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 29.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash the notice dated 18.03.2025 under Annexure-1 to the application. 4. On perusal of the record it appears that the notice dated 18.03.2025 has been issued under the signature of the learned S.D.M., Puri in Misc. Case No.160 of 2025 which was initiated under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C which corresponds to Section 141(1)(b) of the B.N.S.S. The aforesaid notice has been issued to Page 2 of 3. the Petitioner for cancellation of G.B. Bond executed by the Petitioner in a proceeding under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. The aforesaid proceeding has been initiated on the complaint that after executing a G.B. bond under Section 117 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner was found to be involved in some other criminal cases. As such, he has committed breach of the condition of the bond executed by him. Accordingly, he has been noticed to appear on 27.03.2025 before the S.D.M., Puri. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although a notice has been issued to the Petitioner to show- cause as to why the bond executed by the Petitioner shall not be cancelled. However, such notice does not reflect the details of the allegation made against the present petitioner. He further contended that there is no specific material in the notice to which the Petitioner is required to give his reply. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that notice under Annexure-1 is a defective one. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the notice under Annexure-1 is as per the requirement under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C which corresponds to Section 141(1)(b) of the B.N.S.S. She further contended that the same has been issued in statutory form, therefore, no fault can be found with the learned S.D.M., Puri while issuing notice to the Petitioner for cancellation of the bond. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is completely misconceived and, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the Page 3 of 3. respective parties, on a careful scrutiny of the notice under Annexure-1, it is found that although it has been alleged that the Petitioner has committed breach of the bond condition by indulging in criminal activities, however, the details of such activities have not been given in the said notice. In such view of the matter, this Court found that the notice is defective in the aforesaid extent that the same does not reflect the details of the crime alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner after execution of the bond. In such view of the matter, the notice under Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the S.D.M., Puri to issue a fresh notice, if so desired, by furnishing the detailed activities committed by the Petitioner after he had executed a G.B. Bond. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer