Bail cancellation for arbitrary exercise of discretion upheld where bail was granted on irrelevant material and in undue haste.

Cancellation of bail is not confined to post-release conduct; a superior court may interfere where bail was granted on irrelevant material, without proper application of mind, or in breach of procedural fairness. Here, bail was considered on the same day as surrender, the complainant was not heard, the record was called for and the matter decided with unusual haste, and the magistrate relied on documents subsequent to cognizance and unrelated to the complaint. These facts supported the finding that discretion under Section 437 was exercised arbitrarily and for oblique reasons, so the cancellation order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the accused was liable to be cancelled for being granted on irrelevant considerations, in undue haste, and without hearing the complainant.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail is not confined only to post-release conduct; where the court granting bail acts on irrelevant material, fails to apply its mind, disregards necessary procedural fairness, or grants bail in a manifestly improper manner, a superior court may interfere. On the facts, the bail application was taken up on the same day as surrender, the complainant was not heard, the record was summoned and the application was decided with unusual haste, and the magistrate relied on documents that were subsequent to cognizance and unrelated to the complaint. These circumstances supported the inference that discretion under Section 437 of the Code was exercised arbitrarily and for oblique reasons.

Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was justified, and the challenge to that order failed.

---