Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010186112026 2026:GAU-AS:14018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./461/2026 AZIZUR RAHMAN S/O NOWAB ALI, R/O VILL.- PAHUMARA, P.S. BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SAURADEEP DEY, SHELI CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 22.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. In this petition, under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 20.08.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC), Kamrup(M), in Page No.# 2/13 petition No. 1311(1)/2026, filed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 111/2026. 3. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.04.2026, one Balchiring B. Marak had lodged one FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Azara Police Station, alleging that on 02.02.2026, 400 bags of sugar were loaded in a Truck, bearing Registration No. AS-01-TC-9768 and the petitioner was the driver of the said Truck. But, the said loaded sugar bags were not delivered at the proper destination and the phone number of the petitioner was found to be switched off and the owner of the Truck, namely, Abdul Hamid also denied having any information with regard to the same. 3.1. Mr. Dey also submits that on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Azara P.S. Case No. 44/2026 was registered on 16.04.2026, under Sections 305(b)/305(c)/318(4)/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS, and that apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioner had preferred one application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail, which was registered as Anticipatory Bail Application No. 111/2026. Mr. Dey further submits that thereafter, vide order dated 04.06.2026, the petitioner was granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail with the conditions amongst others that the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from passing of such order, as and when required. 3.2. Mr. Dey submits that the petitioner complied with the directions contained in the interim order dated 04.06.2026, and appeared before the I.O. to have his statement recorded, and thereafter, vide order dated 12.06.2026, the interim pre-arrest bail was made absolute in the same terms and conditions, and thereafter, he appeared on every occasions when he was called to the police station, except on one occasion on account of his illness and thereafter, he was summoned to the police station on 25.06.2026, 28.06.2026 and 30.06.2026, Page No.# 3/13 and notice was issued to him under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. 3.3. Mr. 3.3. Mr. Dey also submits that the petitioner appeared before the I.O. on 25.06.2026 and 28.06.2026, but he could not appear before the I.O. on 30.06.2026, as he was suffering from high fever and could not travel from his native village at Pohumara, in Barpeta district to Azara, and thereafter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 27.06.2026, had filed a petition under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, alleging that the petitioner had deliberately failed to appear before the I.O. and that he was violating the bail conditions and not cooperating with the investigating agency, and the liberty granted to him was being misused and he had continuously been abstaining, and therefore, it was contended to cancel the bail, and the said petition was registered as petition No. 1311(1) dated 27.07.2026. 3.4. Mr. Dey submits that thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC), Kamrup(M) had issued notice to the petitioner dated 10.08.2026, but the same was received by the petitioner only on 18.08.2026, and the said notice indicates that the case had been fixed on 20.08.2026, and directed him to appear before the Court, either personally or through his counsel. Mr. Dey also submits that thereafter, on 20.08.2026, the petitioner was represented by his counsel and after appearance before the learned trial Court, the counsel for the petitioner came to know that a petition had been filed for cancellation of bail, which was granted earlier to the present petitioner, but copy of the said petition was never furnished to his counsel and the matter was directly taken up for final disposal on the said date and ultimately, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was taken into custody and now he is languishing in jail hazot. 3.5. Mr. Dey further submits that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had Page No.# 4/13 filed a petition for cancellation of bail without providing a copy of the same to the petitioner and without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the bail was cancelled. Mr. Dey also submits that the allegation made by the I.O. for cancellation of bail before the learned trial Court is vindictive, and in support of his submission, he has referred to an order dated 10.09.2026, passed by the learned Sub-Judicial Magistrate(S) No.1, Kamrup(M), wherein the learned Magistrate had recorded in paragraph No. 15 that the petitioner had shown round red mark and black bluish bruise present in both the buttocks, which was a clear indication that he was mercilessly beaten and the Court was also shocked that even the doctor failed to notice such injury. 3.6. Under such circumstances, Mr. Dey submits that cancelation of bail order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be interfered with. 4. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and submits that the prayer for cancellation of bail has rightly been allowed by the learned trial Court, and that the petitioner was represented by his counsel, who never raised any objection about non- furnishing of a copy of the petition to him. However, Mr. Borthakur fairly submits that the petitioner ought to have been furnished with a copy of the petition and opportunity to file his reply and the impugned order fails to indicate that such opportunity was given to him. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 20.08.2026, and the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial Court. Page No.# 5/13 6. Having gone through the impugned order dated 20.08.2026, and also the scanned copy of the record, this Court is unable to find that a copy of the petition under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 111/2026, was furnished either to him or to his counsel. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out during the course of hearing and this Court finds sufficient force in the same. 7. Further, it appears that from the contention made in the petition that the petitioner had appeared before the I.O. on two occasions and only on one occasion, he could not appear before the I.O., and as such, role of the I.O. appears to be not above board. Moreover, the principles of cancellation of bail are well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, notable amongst others, are reproduced herein below. 7.1. In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in (1978) 1 SCC 118, while dealing with the issue of cancellation of bail under section 439(2) Cr.P.C., Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the position as under: "Under Section 439(2) of the new Code, a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any Court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial, after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well Page No.# 6/13 approach the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court." 7.2. Subsequent judgments have forward this discussion and differentiated between cases where cancellation of bail is sought on the basis of supervening circumstances, which arise from facts happening after the order of granting bail was given, or facts which were not before the judge while passing order granting bail and cases where cancellation of bail is sought on the ground that order granting bail is illegal or perverse. 7.3. In the recent case of Bhagirath Judeja vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284, it is stated that the power under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has to be exercised with extreme care and circumspection and very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are, or ground has to be made out as relied upon by the respondent No.2. 7.4. In the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 481, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail can be cancelled where: (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) Interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) Attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) Threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, Page No.# 7/13 (v) There is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. 7.5. In Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. [(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1974-1975 of 2019) arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8882-8883 of 2019], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail." 7.6. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that these grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. 7.7. In the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 508, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside an order granting bail observed: "The issue that is presented before us is whether this Court can annul the order passed by the High Court and curtail the liberty of the 2nd respondent. We are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless Page No.# 8/13 treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on as human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilization rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralyzed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the Court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law." 7.8. In the case of Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 143, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Page No.# 9/13 "The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime. It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation." 7.9. The proposition of law, which can be crystallized from the cases discussed herein above, is that courts which grants bail, can also withdraw the concession of bail, either on its own, or on the application preferred by the Police/Complainant/any other aggrieved person. But, the Courts exercise their power of cancellation of bail with care and circumspection. Routinely, the Courts refuse to cancel bail, as it jeopardizes the personal liberty of the person. The Courts cancel bails only when they find on record a very cogent and overwhelming circumstances prevailing against the accused as held in the case of Bhuri Bai VS. The State of Madhya Pradesh; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956. 7.10. Also the High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice and if relevant materials, indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, were ignored by the court granting bail. Those orders are against the well-recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail and the same are legally infirm and Page No.# 10/13 vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and even in absence of supervening circumstances, such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. notwithstanding. 8. In the instant case the petitioner was granted interim bail vide order dated 04.06.2026, with the conditions amongst others that the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from passing of such order, as and when required. It is the categorical contention of Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner complied with the directions contained in the interim order dated 04.06.2026, and appeared before the I.O. to have his statement recorded. The interim pre-arrest bail order was made absolute vide order dated 12.06.2026, in the same terms and conditions, and thereafter, he appeared on every occasions when he was called to the police station, except on one occasion on account of his illness and thereafter, he was summoned to the police station on 25.06.2026, 28.06.2026 and 30.06.2026, and notice was issued to him under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. 8.1. Thus, it is admitted position that the petitioner could not appear before the I.O. on 30.06.2026, as he was suffering from high fever and could not travel from his native village at Pohumara, in Barpeta district to Azara. Then the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on, had filed a petition, No. 1311(1) dated 27.07.2026, under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, alleging that the petitioner had deliberately failed to appear before the I.O. and that he was violating the bail conditions and not cooperating with the investigating agency, and the liberty granted to him was being misused and he had continuously been abstaining, and therefore, it was contended to cancel the bail. 8.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC), Kamrup(M) then issued notice to the petitioner dated 10.08.2026, but the same was received by Page No.# 11/13 the petitioner only on 18.08.2026, and the said notice indicates that the case had been fixed on 20.08.2026, and directed him to appear before the Court, either personally or through his counsel. On 20.08.2026, the petitioner was represented by his counsel and after appearance before the learned trial Court; the counsel for the petitioner came to know that a petition had been filed for cancellation of bail, which was granted earlier to the present petitioner. 8.3. Thereafter, the learned Court below had cancelled the bail on 20.08.2026. The ground, for which the bail was cancelled, thus cannot said to be unjustified. This is one side of the lis. 8.4. The other side is that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was furnished a copy of the said petition and the matter was directly taken up for final disposal on the said date. Though notice was issued to the petitioner, it is not clear from the record of the learned Court below whether the same was accompanied by a copy of the petition or not. But, it is the categorical contention that no copy was furnished. 8.5. Serving a copy of cancellation petition or equivalent notice of the grounds is the way how the accused actually gets to know the allegation of misuse of liberty, threat to witness tampering of witness, absconding, breach of condition or other supervening circumstances and to file a reply. A hearing without that material cannot be said to be fair. 8.6. Even after notice, cancellation of bail is not automatic. The party seeking it must usually show cogent, supervening circumstances that make it no longer conducive to a fair trial to leave the accused at liberty. 8.7. Mere dissatisfaction with bail order or a single missed appearance is ordinarily not enough. Single missed appearance, to the considered opinion of Page No.# 12/13 this Court cannot be a overwhelming circumstance prevailing against the petitioner herein, while it has not been denied the categorical contention of the petitioner that he had appeared before the I.O. on several occasions. 8.8. Thus, it appears that the procedure of cancellation of the bail, which was granted to the petitioner, by the learned Court below, appears to be not fair. It violates the principle of natural justice. 9. Further, from the petition filed by the learned Addl. P.P. failed to indicate on which dates the petitioner failed to appear before the I.O. As submitted by Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner, the I.O. is actuated by mala-fides and the same is apparent from the torture meted out to the petitioner, fact is apparent from the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Barpeta, dated 10.09.2026, before whom the petitioner was produced. 10. It is well settled in the case of Neeru Yadav (supra) that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being, which is founded on the bed rock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle and it is basically a natural right and sometimes it is regarded as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. 10.1. In the case of the petitioner the liberty appears to be curtailed without following fair procedure as discussed herein above in spite of the same being held as a fundamental right and part of the Article 21 of the Constitution. 11. Thus, having examined the impugned order dated 20.08.2026, in the light of the propositions laid down herein above, this Court finds that the same failed to withstand the legal scrutiny, for being passed denying fair opportunity to file reply to the petitioner, and as it violation of the principles of natural justice. Besides, the role of the I.O. appears to be not above board. Page No.# 13/13 12. In the result, the impugned order of cancellation of bail of the petitioner, dated 20.08.2026, stands set aside and quashed. 13. The petitioner, who is languishing in jail hazot pursuant to the cancellation of the anticipatory bail, shall be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. 14. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant