Anticipatory bail cancellation refused where alleged online record tampering was traceable and trial safeguards were already in place.

Anticipatory bail was not cancelled where allegations of misuse of login credentials, diversion of funds, false returns and online manipulation of records did not disclose offences treated as heinous enough to justify cancellation. The court noted that investigation had already advanced, online tampering could be traced through records, and the accused were adequately secured for trial by conditions such as travel restrictions and surrender of passport. The proceeding was also distinguished from a recovery action. On that basis, cancellation under Sections 439(2) and 482 CrPC was held unwarranted and the petitions were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused persons should be cancelled in exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The allegations related to misuse of login credentials, diversion of funds, false returns, and online manipulation of records, but the offences were not treated as heinous so as to warrant cancellation of bail. The investigation had already progressed, and any online tampering could be detected through records. The securing of the accused for trial and investigation was considered adequately safeguarded by the conditions imposed, including restrictions on travel and surrender of passport. The proceeding was also distinguished from a recovery action.

Conclusion: The cancellation of anticipatory bail was not justified and the petitions were rejected.

---