1. Leave granted.

2. The sentence of the appellant, in an appeal filed challenging his conviction and sentence before the High Court, was suspended by the High Court pending the decision of his Criminal Appeal No.1070 of 2000 and he was directed to be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25.000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court in terms of the order dated 11.1.2002. That order was passed after hearing the counsel for the appellant as also the Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. After about 2-1/2 months of the passing of the above order, the High Court issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his bail should not be cancelled. It is not in dispute that the show-cause notice was issued suo motu by the High Court, no application for cancellation had been filed either by the State or by any other Court, no application for cancellation had been filed either by the State or by any other party. On consideration of show-cause notice, the order dated 11.1.2002 was recalled and bail granted to the appellant was cancelled. The only reason given, on noticing the facts in brief by the High Court, is that the order for bail was passed on 11.1.2002 on some misapprehension of factual position.

4. It is not a case of the State before this Court nor was it before the High Court that the appellant abused, in any manner, the order suspending his sentence pending appeal and directing his release on bail. It is well settled that different considerations have to be weighed while considering an application for grant of bail and while considering an application for cancelling the bail already granted. It is apparent from the impugned order cancelling bail that the bail was cancelled on re-appreciation of the facts of the case. In the order dated 11.1.2002, sentence was directed to be suspended noticing the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the overt act attributed to him in evidence before the Court was wholly contradictory to what was stated by the witnesses in their statements before the police. In the impugned order, the High Court has noticed on a perusal of evidence that the deceased had died of several cutting and stab wounds and the appellant is attributed to have given knife-blows to the deceased and it is in this context, the impugned order mentions that the order for bail passed on 11.1.2002 was based on some misapprehension of factual position.

5. The order of bail can be cancelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances but not on re-appreciation of evidence as was done by the High Court. No supervening circumstances have been brought to our notice which may warrant the recalling of the order dated 11.1.2002. The principles that have to be kept in view for recalling the order of bail are set out in Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana,

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court dated 5.7.2002. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the order dated 11.1.2002 is restored.

7. The appeal is allowed accordingly.