Distinction between rejection of bail and cancellation of bail

represents a foundational principle in criminal jurisprudence, establishing that the parameters governing the initial refusal of bail fundamentally differ from those applicable when seeking the revocation of bail already granted. When an accused seeks bail at the threshold of proceedings in a non-bailable case, the court evaluates whether personal liberty ought to be curtailed during investigation or trial based on the prima facie gravity of the charge, the likelihood of abscondence, and the risk of witness tampering. In stark contrast, once a competent court has exercised its judicial discretion to enlarge an undertrial on bail, a vested right of personal liberty crystallizes under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be retracted casually or routinely. Cancellation of bail requires the moving party to demonstrate extraordinary, cogent, and overwhelming circumstances showing that the accused has rendered the continuation of freedom incompatible with a fair trial. Consequently, the threshold for cancellation is substantially higher than that for rejection, requiring compelling evidence rather than mere re-appreciation of allegations that existed when bail was originally granted. (Usman Ali Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another | 2026 INSC 98)