Bail cancellation in serious offences requires cogent reasons, especially where witness intimidation and tampering risk fairness.

Grant of bail in serious offences must rest on cogent reasons and relevant considerations, including the gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, prima facie material, and the risk of interference with justice. Where earlier bail rejection existed and later material suggested witness intimidation or tampering, a departure from that position required explicit justification. An order passed without addressing those factors, or without adequate reasons, is vulnerable to cancellation because it does not properly safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. The bail granted by the High Court was accordingly cancelled.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused and whether the bail order was liable to be cancelled.

Analysis: Grant of bail is a discretionary exercise that must be founded on cogent reasons and relevant considerations, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, prima facie material, and the possibility of interference with the administration of justice. Where the offence alleged is a grave and heinous one, and the record indicates prior rejection of bail, subsequent events suggesting intimidation of witnesses, and other material circumstances bearing on the fairness of the proceedings, a departure from the earlier view must be supported by explicit reasons. The absence of such reasons, coupled with allegations of witness intimidation and tampering, renders the grant of bail unsustainable.

Conclusion: The bail granted by the High Court was rightly cancelled.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail in serious offences can be cancelled where the order granting it ignores material considerations, lacks cogent reasons, and the record discloses a real risk of interference with witnesses or the due course of justice.

---