1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln No. 660 of 2006 Akshay Kumar S/O Shri Karan Singh, R/O Rajendra Nagar, Roorkee, Police Station Gangnaher Roorkee, District Haridwar ………. Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Additional Session Judge Roorkee, District Haridwar …………..Respondents Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate present for the petitioner Shri Mamta Bisht A.G.A for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order-dated 10.07.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial no. 72 of 2003 whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled. (2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was facing trial in respect of offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 336, 504, 302 of I.P.C. Police Station Gangnaher, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Sessions Trial no 72 of 2003 (arisen out of crime no 174 of 2000). The 2 petitioner, who moved the bail application no. 478 of 2001 before this Court was granted bail vide this Court order dated 23.05.2001. It appears that on 10.07.2006, two accused Brijpal and Prashant Kumar were present in the Court in the aforesaid Sessions Trial, but petitioner was absent. The impugned order dated 10.07.2006 shows that it was recorded that Akshay Kumar is in Jail in connection with another case. On this learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail of the petitioner in aforesaid Sessions Trial observing that bail is cancelled. (4) Having considered submissions of that learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 10.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial Court no.72 of 2003 is erroneous in law, for the reason that the bail could have been cancelled by the trial Court for some sufficient reason. The bail granted by this Court has been cancelled by the trial Court (Additional Judge, Roorkee), without mentioning any reason and without hearing the petitioner. It could have been cancelled without reason at the time of conviction. (5) Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The same is set aside. Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C stands disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.27.3.2010 Nahid 3