Apex court has indicated the following situations as supervening aspects that may justify the cancellation of bail.

• Interference or/and attempt to interfere with the due process of meeting ends of justice.
• Misuse of the concession granted to the alleged by not following the terms agreed while out on bail.
• Evasion or attempt to evade court proceedings.
• Possibility of the accused disappearance or absconding to another country.
• Likelihood of the accused meddling with the evidence, threatening witnesses or obstructing the investigation.
• Likelihood of actual misuse of bail.
• Other supervening circumstances that have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial permit the accused to retain his liberty by being on bail.

However, the court has inherent powers and discretion to revoke the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. The following are some examples of illustrative principles:

• The court granting bail oversees the influential position of the accused compared to the victim of abuse or the eyewitnesses, especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
• Where bail has been granted based on unconstitutional grounds.
• Where the prior criminal record and conduct of the accused is entirely ignored while granting bail.
• Where major discrepancies are discovered in the order granting bail, thereby causing prejudice to justice.
• When the order granting bail is whimsical, capricious, and perverse in the facts of the given case.
• Where the bail was not appropriate in the initial stage due to the extremely serious nature of the charges against the alleged, which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified.
• Where the court granting bail takes into consideration irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record.