Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ambika Ray, Zaki Ahmad Khan, M. Khairati, Irshad Ahmad, Advs., for the Appellants.
For the Respondents:Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Jitendra Mohapatra, Shibashish Pattanaik, Merusagar Samantaray, Advs., for the Respondents.

The legal document indicates that the appellate court reviewed the order of the High Court which had canceled the anticipatory bail granted by the lower court. The appellate court emphasized that the order of bail was granted after considering the relevant factors and exercising judicial discretion appropriately. The court noted that the High Court's order lacked consideration of the distinction between initial bail rejection and the cancellation of an already granted bail, and it failed to account for the absence of any supervening circumstances justifying cancellation (!) (!) (!) .

Specifically, the document highlights that there is no mention or record of the earlier bail order being invalid or improperly granted, nor any indication that the appellant had violated the conditions of bail or interfered with justice (!) . The appellate court therefore found that the cancellation of the bail order was not justified and that the earlier bail order should be presumed valid unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

In summary, the legal reasoning suggests that the absence of any mention of or evidence regarding the earlier bail order's invalidity or misconduct supports the conclusion that the order was properly granted and should not be canceled without cogent reasons.