https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194589 The Supreme Court distinguished the standards for granting bail from those governing cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC. It held that cancellation is not confined to supervening circumstances and may also follow where the bail order is vitiated by reliance on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material factors relevant to entitlement to bail. A bail order based on untenable considerations remains vulnerable to interference, and re-appreciation of evidence is not required in such a case. On the facts, the trial court had relied on irrelevant factors, so the High Court's interference was justified and the appeal failed. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194589 The Supreme Court distinguished the standards for granting bail from those governing cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC. It held that cancellation is not confined to supervening circumstances and may also follow where the bail order is vitiated by reliance on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material factors relevant to entitlement to bail. A bail order based on untenable considerations remains vulnerable to interference, and re-appreciation of evidence is not required in such a case. On the facts, the trial court had relied on irrelevant factors, so the High Court's interference was justified and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194589