Anticipatory bail cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances; absent abuse or interference with justice, it cannot be cancelled.

Cancellation of anticipatory bail stands on a different footing from refusal at the threshold and requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with the administration of justice, abuse of the concession, evasion of justice, or other supervening events showing that continued liberty is no longer fair. On the record, no such material was shown, and the High Court interfered with the Sessions Judge's discretion without satisfying these requirements. The SC held that the cancellation was unjustified and set aside the High Court's order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail already granted stands on a different footing from refusal of bail at the threshold. Such cancellation requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, ordinarily involving interference or attempted interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, abuse of the concession of bail, or other supervening circumstances showing that continued liberty is no longer conducive to a fair trial. On the record, no material showed interference with the course of justice, abuse of the concession granted, or any supervening circumstance warranting cancellation. The High Court interfered with the judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge without satisfying these governing requirements.

Conclusion: The cancellation of anticipatory bail was unjustified and the order of the High Court was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled mechanically; cancellation requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances showing abuse of liberty, interference with justice, or other supervening circumstances.

---