Cancellation of bail requires supervening circumstances or misuse of liberty; absent tampering or flight risk, bail should stand.

Cancellation of bail requires a stricter standard than refusal at the initial stage and cannot be ordered mechanically. Once bail has been granted, it may be withdrawn only on cogent and overwhelming grounds showing misuse of liberty, supervening circumstances, tampering with evidence, or risk of absconding. On the facts noted, there was no allegation of evidence tampering, no material indicating flight risk or breach of bail conditions, and no persuasive basis for further custodial necessity. The release of the seized watches and payment of penalty also weakened the request for cancellation. The petitions for cancellation of bail were therefore rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail already granted to the respondents was liable to be cancelled in the absence of supervening circumstances, misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, or risk of absconding.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from refusal of bail at the initial stage. Once bail is granted, it is not to be disturbed mechanically; cogent and overwhelming reasons must show that the accused has misused the concession or that subsequent circumstances make continued liberty inconsistent with a fair trial. The record disclosed no allegation of tampering with evidence, no material showing flight risk or evasion, and no demonstrated breach of the conditions of bail. The fact that the seized watches had been released and penalty paid further undermined the request for cancellation, and no persuasive basis was shown for any further custodial necessity.

Conclusion: The petitions for cancellation of bail were rightly rejected, as no supervening circumstance or misuse of bail was established.

---