Cancellation of bail requires distinct grounds; absent breach of conditions and with substantial custody, bail was restored.

Cancellation of bail is assessed on a footing different from grant of bail, and a prior refusal does not by itself justify cancellation where there is no breach of bail conditions. In a Customs Act prosecution, the Supreme Court found that the accused had not violated any bail condition and had already undergone substantial under-trial incarceration. On those facts, the Court held the case fit for bail at that stage and restored bail on the same conditions imposed by the trial court, so the High Court's cancellation did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of bail granted to the appellant was justified and whether the appellant was entitled to bail.

Analysis: The appellant had been enlarged on bail by the trial court in a prosecution under the Customs Act. The High Court cancelled that bail on the ground that an earlier bail rejection had not been followed by any change in circumstances. The Court noted that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from grant of bail. It also found substance in the submission that the appellant had not violated any bail condition and had already undergone substantial under-trial incarceration. Independently of the technical objections, the Court found the case fit for bail at that stage.

Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was not sustained, and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail on the same conditions as imposed by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained bail relief, and the High Court's cancellation of bail did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of bail is governed by considerations distinct from grant of bail, and where there is no breach of bail conditions and the circumstances otherwise justify liberty, bail may be restored or granted.

---