The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of bail should be based on a change in circumstances, and the appellant's compliance with bail conditions should be considered.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the arguments finally at this stage.

3. The Trial Court had granted bail to the appellant herein, who is an under-trial, in criminal case registered against the appellant and others under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act vide order dated 12-5-2014. More than one year thereafter i.e. in July, 2015, the respondent approached the High Court for cancellation of the said bail by filing petition under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court has allowed the said petition and cancelled the bail.

4. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that even as per the prosecution, one Mr. Anil Gadodia was the kingpin, who has already been granted bail. He further argued that on merits no plausible case was made out against the appellant herein. The main submission, however, was that the High Court did not adhere to the principles of cancelling the bail which are different from grant of bail, inasmuch as there was no change in the circumstances and also that the appellant has already suffered incarceration as an under-trial for a period of one year and three months.

5. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned ASG, on the other hand, submitted that the main reason why the High Court cancelled the bail was that on an earlier occasion the High Court had rejected the bail on 19-12-2013 and in spite thereof, when there was no change in the circumstances, the bail was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12-5-2014. He, thus, submitted that if at all let the High Court consider the bail plea of the appellant.

6. There is some substance in the contention raised by Dr. Singhvi that when the appellant had not violated any of the bail conditions, allowing the application for cancellation of bail after one year and three months, may not be appropriate. However, we may record that apart from the technical niceties which are argued by both the parties, even otherwise we find that it would be a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant at this stage. We, thus, enlarge the appellant on bail on the same conditions on which it was granted by the Trial Court.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.