The High Court has inherent power under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code to cancel bail, even in cases of bailable offences, where the circumstances suggest that the accused is interfering with the course of justice or making a fair trial impossible.

1. The two petitions presented by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Preventive and Customs, Bombay raise questions of considerable importance. The first respondent along with others was charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act. He was released on hail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety of like amount on 9-12-1957. On 4-1-1958 an application was made by the complainant, who is the petitioner before us, for cancellation of that bail and the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who was trying the case held that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against that order these two petitions have been preferred. The first is an application to the High Court to exercise its own power arid cancel the bail. The other is au application in revision against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate holding that he has no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Now, before we go into the merits and decide whether this is a fit case for cancellation of bail, we must carefully examine whether we have jurisdiction to pass the order, and it has been strenuously urged by Mr. Somjee on behalf of the first respondent that the High Court has no power under the circumstances of this case and has no jurisdiction having regard to the nature of the of Fence with winch the accused is charged, to cancel the bail already granted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The first important fact to hear in mind and which has really led to the whole debate before us is that the offence under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act is a bailable offence. The Criminal Procedure Code does not lay down any principle which distinguishes bailable offences from non-bailable offences, except that in the Second Schedule to the Code certain offences are described as bailable, and certain offences are described as non-bailable, and when we turn to offences not covered by the Indian Penal Code, it is provided that any offence against other laws, if punishable with imprisonment for one year and upwards but less than three years, has been made bailable, and the offence with which the accused is charged is punishable under the Sea Customs Act with imprisonment of less than three years. But we take it that in creating these two classes of offences, the Legislature must have had in mind the gravity of the offence. Grave offences are ordinarily placed in the category of non-bailable offences and offences which are less serious or less dangerous to the public are put in the category of bailable offences. But it may happen--and it has happened in this case--that even a bailable offence may assume serious importance. It may depend upon the nature of the offence, it may depend upon the circumstances in which the offence was committed. It may depend upon the amount involved, and although ordinarily the offence may not be serious, when all these factors are taken into consideration, as we just said, a bailable offence may assume the same serious proportion as a non-bailable offence.

2. Now, turning to the provisions in the Code with regard to bait, Section 496 deals with bail in the case of bailable offences and undoubtedly that section confers upon the accused a right to be released on bail, and as the language used is the language of mandate the Court has no option but to enlarge an accused person on bail if he is accused of a bailable offence. The only condition laid down is that he has got to execute the necessary bond provided under the Code. In sharp contrast with the language of Section 496 is the language used by the Legislature in Section 497. There discretion is conferred upon the Court whether to release or not to release an accused person accused or suspected of the commission of a non-bailable offence. The expression used there is not "shall" but "may" and there is a prohibition in that section against the release of an accused person on bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of