Cancellation of bail requires strong grounds; prolonged custody and slow trial may justify continued bail protection.

Cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC requires strong supervening grounds such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence or threats to witnesses. Bail granted because the accused had remained in custody for several months, only one witness had been examined, and the trial was proceeding slowly was treated as consistent with the statutory and constitutional value of speedy trial and personal liberty. In those circumstances, the bail order was not shown to be illegal or contrary to law, and the application for cancellation was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail granted by the court below was liable to be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and is justified only on strong grounds such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence or witnesses, threatening witnesses, or similar circumstances. The bail granted below was not on merits but because the accused had remained in custody for about 7/8 months in a magisterial trial, out of 25 cited witnesses only one had been examined, and the trial was proceeding slowly. Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reflects the legislative recognition of the right to speedy trial, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects personal liberty. In such circumstances, the grant of bail by the court below could not be said to be contrary to law warranting cancellation.

Conclusion: The application for cancellation of bail was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail granted on account of prolonged custody and delay in trial cannot be cancelled in the absence of strong grounds showing misuse of liberty or other supervening circumstances.

---