Bail cancellation may follow when the grant order rests on irrelevant considerations, even without supervening circumstances.

The Supreme Court distinguished the standards for granting bail from those governing cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC. It held that cancellation is not confined to supervening circumstances and may also follow where the bail order is vitiated by reliance on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material factors relevant to entitlement to bail. A bail order based on untenable considerations remains vulnerable to interference, and re-appreciation of evidence is not required in such a case. On the facts, the trial court had relied on irrelevant factors, so the High Court's interference was justified and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail granted under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be cancelled when the order granting bail was founded on irrelevant considerations and ignored relevant factors, even in the absence of supervening circumstances.

Analysis: The Court held that the standards governing grant of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct. While cancellation ordinarily is not ordered by re-appreciating evidence, the power under Section 439(2) extends to cases where the bail order is vitiated because irrelevant materials were taken into account or relevant materials were ignored. A bail order passed on untenable considerations is vulnerable, and the absence of supervening circumstances does not prevent cancellation in such a case. The Court found that the trial court had been influenced by irrelevant factors, including considerations unrelated to the appellant's entitlement to bail, and that the High Court was justified in interfering.

Conclusion: Bail could validly be cancelled on the ground that the order granting it was based on irrelevant and impermissible considerations, and not merely on supervening circumstances. The appeal failed.

---