Bail cancellation needs supervening circumstances; mere allegations and antecedents do not justify curtailing liberty.

Bail cancellation under Section 439(2) requires supervening circumstances or material showing that continued liberty would prejudice a fair trial. The power is exceptional and must be exercised with care and circumspection. Where the prosecution relies mainly on the accused's alleged involvement and antecedents, without any post-release act indicating interference with evidence, witnesses, or investigation, cancellation is not justified. On the stated facts, no supervening circumstance was shown, so the bail cancellation was set aside and the accused remained on bail subject to the existing conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order cancelling the petitioner's bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified in the absence of supervening circumstances showing that he would tamper with evidence or hamper investigation.

Analysis: Bail already granted can be cancelled only where circumstances arise after release, or where material before the Court shows that continuance of liberty would no longer be conducive to a fair trial. The power under Section 439(2) is extraordinary and must be exercised with care and circumspection. The material relied on by the prosecution mainly related to the alleged complicity of the accused in the offence and his antecedents, while the apprehension that he might alert an absconding person was not supported by any act showing interference with investigation or witnesses after release. No supervening circumstance was shown to justify curtailment of liberty.

Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was not justified and was set aside; the petitioner was entitled to remain on bail on the conditions imposed.

---