Bail cancellation requires cogent proof of misuse of liberty; unsubstantiated allegations and non-recovery were insufficient.

Bail once granted can be cancelled only on cogent and overwhelming circumstances showing misuse of liberty, such as absconding or tampering with evidence. The Delhi HC held that unsubstantiated allegations, alleged non-joining of investigation, non-recovery of Istridhan, and unverified claims of threats or refusal of notices were insufficient to justify cancellation, especially where the State conceded that the petitioners were no longer required for investigation and there was no material that they would abscond or interfere with evidence. The order cancelling bail was set aside and the earlier bail order was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the petitioners could be cancelled on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and alleged non-joining of investigation.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The petitioners had already been granted regular bail after arrest, the State conceded that they were no longer required for investigation, and the allegations in the complainant's report were not substantiated. Mere non-recovery of Istridhan or unverified allegations of threats and refusal of notices did not justify cancellation, particularly when there was no material showing that the petitioners were likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

Conclusion: The order cancelling bail was unsustainable and was set aside; the earlier order granting bail was confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail once granted can be cancelled only on cogent and overwhelming circumstances showing misuse of liberty, such as absconding or tampering with evidence, and not on mere unsubstantiated allegations.

---