Cancellation of bail needs cogent supervening circumstances; silence during interrogation, by itself, is not a breach of bail conditions.

Cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and cannot be ordered mechanically. Mere silence during interrogation, where the accused has appeared for questioning, does not by itself amount to breach of bail conditions because the right to remain silent is protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. No other bail condition breach was established, and no new supervening circumstance justifying cancellation was shown, especially where the respondent had already remained under preventive detention for a substantial period. The application for cancellation of bail was therefore not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the respondent was liable to be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of alleged non-compliance with bail conditions, non-cooperation in investigation, and other alleged supervening circumstances.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and is not to be ordered mechanically. The material showed that the respondent had attended the DRI office after being released on bail and that the alleged grievance was essentially that he chose to remain silent in response to certain questions. The right to remain silent is protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and cannot, by itself, be treated as breach of a bail condition when the accused has appeared for interrogation. No breach of any other bail condition was established. The respondent had also remained under preventive detention for a substantial period during pendency of the application, and no new supervening circumstance justifying cancellation was shown.

Conclusion: The application for cancellation of bail was not made out and the bail granted to the respondent was not liable to be cancelled.

---