1. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid judgment that the guidelines laid down for the Magistrate for enlarging an accused on bail also applies to the Sessions Court as well as to the High Court in matters of enlargement of an accused on bail. However, so far as cancellation of bail is concerned the same stands on different footing altogether. It has been held by the Apex Court that granting of bail is one thing and cancellation thereof is quite another. Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana in paragraph 4 thereof has observed thus;
Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation to the bail, already granted Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered fit no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.
