Bail cancellation requires illegality or later misuse of liberty, not merely gravity of allegations or tax-evasion claims.

An order granting bail may be recalled only if it is illegal, perverse, arbitrary, or made without considering relevant factors, while cancellation of bail ordinarily requires supervening misconduct or misuse of liberty. Applying that distinction, the Delhi HC noted that the bail order had considered the accusations, attributed role, custody period, stage of investigation, and collected material. The alleged tax-evasion figure was treated as assumption-based, and the evidence was largely documentary and already in departmental possession. As no material showed absconding, witness influence, tampering with evidence, or non-cooperation, the challenge to bail was not sustainable and the respondent's liberty remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the respondent was liable to be recalled or cancelled on the grounds of gravity of the alleged economic offence, alleged large-scale tax evasion, and apprehension of tampering with evidence or non-cooperation in investigation.

Analysis: The distinction between an order granting bail and cancellation of bail was applied. Recall of bail is concerned with whether the original order suffered from illegality, perversity, arbitrariness, or non-consideration of material factors, whereas cancellation generally depends on subsequent misconduct or supervening circumstances. The impugned bail order was found to have considered the nature of accusations, the attributed role, period of custody, stage of investigation, and the material collected. The alleged evasion figure was noted but treated as based on assumptions, while the evidence was essentially documentary and already in departmental possession. No material showed that the respondent had misused liberty, was likely to abscond, influence witnesses, or tamper with evidence.

Conclusion: The bail order did not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or improper exercise of discretion, and no ground existed for recall or cancellation.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the grant of bail was not sustainable, and the respondent's liberty on bail was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order granting bail can be interfered with only if it is shown to be illegal, perverse, arbitrary, or based on failure to consider relevant factors, while cancellation of bail ordinarily requires supervening circumstances or misuse of the liberty granted.

---