violated any condition, the opposite side could move for cancellation/recalling of the order. Learned counsel urges that respondent No.2 was continuously violating terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and was not bringing the children for visits to the petitioner. DDRs were lodged in concerned police station in this regard. Petitioner, who was the mother was not able to meet her children, causing grave mental stress and harassment. Thus, order of anticipatory bail in favour of respondent No.2 deserved to be cancelled.

In Crl. Appeal No. 2381 of 2025, decided on 02.05.2025, titled Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and Another, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“16. The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v.