' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioners were arrested in case F.I.R. No, 175 dated 1-9-2005 registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Karampur, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari. They were granted bail after arrest by the Magistrate vide order dated 1-11-2005. The complainant moved an application for cancellation of bail in which notices were issued in the name of the petitioners to appear before the Court on 28'11-2005. The petitioners did not appear before the Court and their bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 28-11-2005. The petitioners were allowed pre-arrest bail by this Court on 25-1-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners A contends that due to collusion of process server concerned police officials as well as complainant of the case, the petitioners remained uniformed about the pendency of the cancellation of bail; the petitioners were not even alleged to misuse the concession of bail and the grounds of cancellation of bail were not available, which aspect of the case was overlooked and that keeping the petitioners behind the bars no useful purpose will be served.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the. Petitioners while filing second bail application on 27-10-2005 concealed the facts that his earlier bail application was dismissed. It is further contended that the petitioners were served but despite service they did not appear before the Court. Learned State counsel has supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. However, he submits that it was incumbent upon the Court that before cancellation of bail to issue bailable or non-bailable warrants against the petitioners.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, the bail of the petitioners was cancelled due to their non- appearance before the Court. However, the learned Judge without taking any step to secure their attendance in the Court straightaway cancelled their bail, whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioners has very strongly argued that the petitioners were not served and the report submitted by the police regarding service of notice was fake and fabricated.
5. In this view of the matter, without dilating upon the merits of the case the order dated 28-11-2005 is set aside. The application for cancellation of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall deem to be pending, who shall decide the application on merit. The petitioners shall appear before the said Court on 10-3-2006.