Bail cancellation for witness tampering upheld where supervening conduct showed abuse of liberty and interference with justice.

Bail already granted may be cancelled where subsequent conduct shows abuse of liberty, especially an attempt to tamper with prosecution witnesses and interfere with the administration of justice. In an application under section 439(2) CrPC, the prosecution need not prove witness-tampering beyond reasonable doubt; a preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. On the material before the Court, the complaints of approvers, corroborative affidavits and surrounding circumstances were treated as satisfactory proof of interference, so cancellation of bail was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail already granted to the accused should be cancelled on the ground that he had abused his liberty by attempting to tamper with prosecution witnesses.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail stands on a footing different from rejection of bail at the threshold. A bail once granted is ordinarily withdrawn only where supervening circumstances make it no longer conducive to a fair trial for the accused to remain at liberty. In an application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution is not required to establish witness-tampering beyond reasonable doubt; proof on a preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. On the material before the Court, the complaints made by the approvers, the corroborative affidavits and the surrounding circumstances furnished satisfactory proof that the accused had attempted to suborn prosecution witnesses and had thereby interfered with the course of justice.

Conclusion: Bail was liable to be cancelled, and the application for cancellation succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail already granted may be cancelled where subsequent conduct shows abuse of liberty by tampering with witnesses, and such interference with the administration of justice need be proved only on a preponderance of probabilities.

---