Bail cancellation requires recognised grounds and reasons; a non-speaking cancellation order cannot stand.

Cancellation of bail is materially different from grant of bail and is justified only on recognised grounds such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation or trial, tampering with evidence or witnesses, or other conduct that impedes administration of justice. An order cancelling bail must record reasons and may be tested for irrelevant considerations, perversity, or non-application of mind. Where the High Court gives no reasons for cancellation, the order cannot be sustained; the cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order cancelling bail could be sustained when the High Court recorded no reasons and whether cancellation of bail requires the presence of legally recognised grounds.

Analysis: The distinction between grant of bail and cancellation of bail is material, and cancellation is justified only on recognised grounds such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation or trial, tampering with evidence or witnesses, or similar conduct that hampers the administration of justice. An order cancelling bail must disclose reasons, and the court hearing the cancellation application may also examine whether irrelevant materials were taken into account or whether the order suffers from perversity or non-application of mind. Where no reasons are given for cancellation, the order cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was unsustainable and was set aside; the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh decision.

---