Bail cancellation requires serious infirmity in the grant order; vague claims of witness threat and tampering are insufficient.

Cancellation of bail is justified only where the bail order suffers from serious infirmity, such as ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, or causing miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the Sessions Court had considered the material before granting bail, the investigation was complete, and there was no basis to treat the bail order as perverse. Allegations that the accused threatened witnesses or tampered with evidence after release were found vague and unsupported by particulars. On that basis, the High Court's cancellation of bail was held unjustified and the cancellation order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted to the appellants.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail is warranted only where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmity, such as ignoring relevant material, considering irrelevant material, or resulting in miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the Sessions Court had perused the material before granting bail, the investigation had been completed, and there was no basis to conclude that the bail order was perverse. The allegations of post-bail threat to witnesses and tampering with evidence were found to be vague and lacking particulars as to which accused had acted in that manner.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail, and the cancellation order was set aside in favour of the appellants.

---