Bail cancellation requires cogent grounds; mere seriousness of allegations or speculative flight risk is not enough.

Bail already granted should not be cancelled mechanically, because cancellation stands on a different footing from rejection at the first instance. Cancellation is justified only where there is interference with justice, attempted evasion, misuse of the concession, absconding risk, tampering with evidence or witnesses, or where the bail order is perverse, illegal, or based on irrelevant considerations while ignoring relevant material. On the facts, the immediate challenge after grant of bail, without material showing misuse, witness intimidation, or failure of the bail conditions, did not justify withdrawal of liberty. The request for cancellation of bail was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the respondent was liable to be cancelled under Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds of gravity of the ations, alleged flight risk, pending investigation, and alleged reliance on irrelevant considerations while granting bail.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail at the first instance. Once liberty has been granted, it should not be withdrawn mechanically. The relevant considerations are whether there is interference or attempted interference with the administration of justice, evasion or attempted evasion of justice, abuse of the concession, possibility of absconding, tampering with evidence or witnesses, or other circumstances making it no longer conducive to a fair trial. Even apart from supervening events, bail may be cancelled where the order granting bail is unjustified, illegal, perverse, or founded on irrelevant considerations of substantial nature and ignores relevant material. On the facts, the petition was moved immediately after grant of bail, so there was no material showing misuse of bail or interference with trial. The concerns about flight risk and gravity of allegations were not sufficient by themselves to justify cancellation, especially when the trial had not progressed and the accused had remained on bail in the extradition proceedings without evidence of absconding or witness intimidation. The conditions imposed by the bail court were also not shown to be inadequate so as to make the grant of bail perverse.

Conclusion: The bail order was not shown to suffer from such infirmity or supervening circumstances as would justify cancellation, and the request for cancellation of bail was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail already granted can be cancelled only on cogent grounds, including supervening circumstances or a demonstrably perverse order based on irrelevant material or ignoring relevant material; mere seriousness of allegations or a speculative apprehension of flight or interference is insufficient.

---