Bail cancellation can be upheld on suppression, fabrication and prima facie interference with justice, not merely on reappraisal of bail merits.

Bail already granted may be cancelled where later material shows misuse of liberty, suppression of facts, fabrication of documents, or a prima facie risk of interference with justice. The court treated cancellation of bail as distinct from rejection of bail and required cogent circumstances showing conduct that could affect the fairness of proceedings. On the record, inconsistent explanations about custody of the original lease, the absence of the document, the operation of the factory without a licence, and the co-accused's statement together supported an inference of involvement and justified cancellation. The challenge to the cancellation order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail already granted could be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of alleged suppression, contradictory statements and material suggesting connivance in the offence; and whether the statement of the co-accused and the surrounding material furnished sufficient grounds for cancellation.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail and requires cogent circumstances showing misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, tampering with evidence, or similar conduct affecting the fairness of the proceedings. The record disclosed that the petitioner claimed to have leased out the premises, yet failed to produce the original agreement and gave inconsistent explanations regarding its custody. The factory was operating without a licence, the petitioner was the owner of the premises, and the co-accused's statement, viewed in the light of the statutory scheme governing inquiries under the Central Excise Act, supported a prima facie inference of the petitioner's involvement. The court also treated the alleged reliance on a fabricated document as relevant to the exercise of bail jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Bail cancellation was justified and the challenge to the cancellation order failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner did not establish any ground to restore the bail, and the cancellation order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail already granted may be cancelled where subsequent material shows misuse of liberty, suppression or fabrication of material facts, or a prima facie likelihood of interference with the due course of justice.

---