Cancellation of bail requires supervening misuse of liberty; a later conflicting forensic report alone is insufficient.

Bail already granted should not be cancelled merely because a later forensic report conflicts with an earlier authorised laboratory report finding no contraband. Cancellation requires recognised supervening circumstances such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or flight risk, and those grounds were not shown here. The NDPS Act's stricter bail restriction was also not established on the facts, as the material indicated only an intermediate quantity and no basis to override the earlier grant of bail. The cancellation order was therefore unsustainable, and the accused was entitled to remain on bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail already granted could be cancelled merely on the basis of a later chemical analysis report when an earlier authorised laboratory report had found no contraband. (ii) Whether the rigours of the special bail restriction under the NDPS Act were attracted on the facts, including the nature of the quantity recovered and the requirements for cancellation of bail.

Issue (i): Whether bail already granted could be cancelled merely on the basis of a later chemical analysis report when an earlier authorised laboratory report had found no contraband.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail at the threshold. Once liberty has been granted, cancellation ordinarily requires supervening circumstances showing misuse of liberty such as tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or likelihood of absconding. Here, the authorised laboratory at Neemuch had reported that the sample did not contain contraband. A subsequent contrary report from another laboratory created a conflict of evidence, but such contradiction was a matter for trial and could not by itself justify cancellation of bail. In bail matters, where two views are possible, the view favouring liberty must prevail.

Conclusion: Bail could not validly be cancelled on the sole basis of the later report.

Issue (ii): Whether the rigours of the special bail restriction under the NDPS Act were attracted on the facts, including the nature of the quantity recovered and the requirements for cancellation of bail.

Analysis: The special restrictions under the NDPS Act apply with full force where commercial quantity is involved, but the material before the Court indicated only an intermediate quantity and the later report itself reflected a small percentage of heroin in the tested sample. The statutory bar was therefore not shown to be attracted in a manner sufficient to override the earlier grant of bail. In addition, the statutory standard for cancellation of bail was not satisfied because no misuse of liberty or other supervening circumstance was established.

Conclusion: The special bail restrictions were not shown to justify cancellation of bail on the facts.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation order could not stand, and the accused was entitled to continue on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail once granted can be cancelled only on recognised grounds showing supervening misuse of liberty, and a later conflicting forensic report, by itself, is insufficient to justify cancellation where the earlier report favours the accused.

---