3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner executed a bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C on 28.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in Crime No.745 of 2020 on 26.07.2020 and PT warrant was issued and the 1 st respondent passed an order under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., canceling the bond against the petitioner for violation of Section 110 Cr.P.C., and detained the petitioner on 26.08.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 1st respondent without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, submission and produce any materials canceled the bond. The learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Magistrate to give a legal assistance and also inform the concern about the reason of the proceedings and the rights available to him. In this Case, no such exercise have been done. Further, the 1 st respondent had merely acted on the report of the 2 nd respondent, without verifying its truthfulness or otherwise. The 1 st respondent, merely, acted as post office in accepting the report of the 2 nd respondent and mechanically passed an order, canceling the bond thereby detaining the petitioner. The detention of the petitioner cannot be done as a matter of routine, since it affects the fundamental right of the petitioner.
