Bail cancellation for breach of conditions cannot be upset in revision, and new legal grounds cannot be raised for the first time.

A revisional court will not interfere where bail is cancelled for breach of imposed conditions, including monetary and restrictive terms, if the cancellation order is otherwise legal and proper. A party also cannot raise for the first time in revision a new legal contention that was already available before the lower court, and ignorance of law is no answer. The note further states that a challenge seeking to dispute the nature of the alleged offence under the Finance Act could not be introduced at the revisional stage when it had not been urged earlier. On that basis, no revisional interference was warranted and the cancellation order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order cancelling bail for non-compliance with the imposed conditions required interference in revision, and whether new grounds regarding the nature of the offence under the Finance Act could be raised for the first time in the revision.

Analysis: The bail was granted on specific monetary and restrictive conditions, and the cancellation application was founded on the applicant's failure to comply with those conditions. The revisional challenge attempted to introduce a new contention that the offence alleged under the Finance Act was not covered by the cognizable and non-bailable provision invoked, but that legal position was already in existence when the bail and cancellation orders were passed. The Court held that such a new ground, not urged earlier, could not be raised for the first time in revision, and that ignorance of law was no answer. On the facts, the impugned cancellation order was found to be legal and proper and no revisional interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The revision against cancellation of bail was rejected, and the bail cancellation order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court will not interfere with cancellation of bail ordered for breach of imposed conditions, and a party cannot, for the first time in revision, raise a new legal contention that was available but not urged before the court below.

---