Cancellation of bail requires supervening circumstances or breach of conditions; absent either, the bail order stands.

Cancellation of regular bail requires cogent and overwhelming reasons, not a merely different view on the original bail order. In the absence of any supervening circumstance affecting trial fairness or any breach of bail conditions, interference is unwarranted. The unchallenged grant of bail to a co-accused also weighed against cancellation. On these facts, the request to cancel bail was rejected and the existing bail order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier grant of regular bail should be cancelled in the absence of supervening circumstances or breach of bail conditions.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming reasons, and the power is not to be exercised mechanically merely because a different view on the merits of the bail order is possible. The material placed did not show any supervening circumstance affecting the fairness of trial or any breach of bail conditions. The fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail and that order had remained unchallenged also weighed against interference with the impugned order.

Conclusion: The prayer for cancellation of bail was rejected and the impugned bail order was upheld.

---