Bail cancellation requires more than a prima facie case; alleged nondisclosure alone did not justify revoking liberty before conviction.

Cancellation of bail is not justified merely because the accused sought bail in more than one forum without disclosure, where no interference with the course of justice or other established ground for denial is shown. The Court emphasised that even a substantial prima facie case does not make bail cancellation a punitive measure before conviction. On the facts, the absence of allegations of tampering, misuse of liberty, or obstruction of justice meant the earlier grant of bail could not be cancelled on the stated grounds, and the accused was allowed to continue on bail until further orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of bail granted to the appellant was justified.

Analysis: The alleged offence was under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Bail had been granted by the Sessions Judge but was cancelled by the High Court mainly because the appellant had sought bail simultaneously before the Sessions Court and the High Court without disclosing the latter application. The Court held that even if the allegations disclosed a substantial prima facie case, refusal or cancellation of bail is not a method of punishing an accused before conviction. No allegation of interference with the course of justice or other established grounds for denial of bail was shown.

Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was not justified, and the appellant was allowed to continue on bail until further orders of the Sessions Court on good cause being shown.

---