Cancellation of bail in money-laundering cases needs strong supervening circumstances; speculative fears were insufficient here.

Cancellation of bail in a money-laundering matter requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as misuse of liberty, interference with justice, evasion of process, or other supervening events showing that continued release is no longer compatible with a fair trial. On the material placed before it, the Delhi HC found no sufficient basis to disturb the bail order; the concerns about tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evading process were not enough on these facts. The request to cancel bail was therefore rejected and the existing bail order remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the respondent in a money-laundering case should be cancelled.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as misuse of the liberty, interference with the administration of justice, evasion of process, or other supervening circumstances showing that continued liberty is no longer conducive to a fair trial. On the material before it, the Court found no sufficient basis to interfere with the order granting bail. The apprehensions raised about tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or evasion of process were not found adequate to justify cancellation in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The request to cancel the respondent's bail was rejected and the bail order was left undisturbed.

---