custodial interrogation. At the stage of co n sideration of anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conclusively determine culpability or condu c t a detailed e xamination of evidence. If t h e petitioner is aggrieved by the manner o f investigation, appropriate r e medies are available under l a w; however, such grievances cannot automa t ically result in cancellation of b ail already g ranted. It is worthwhile to not e herein that respondent No.2 h as joined in v estigation pursuant to the bail order and that the prosecution h as not soug h t cancellation of bail on this ground. It is conceded posit i on before t h is Court that the FIR was r e gistered on 18.10.2025 and the investiga t ing agency has not reported a n y non-cooperation or attempt by responde n t No.2 to interfere with the i n vestigation. It is trite law that the consider a tion(s) for grant of bail and f o r cancellation of bail are disti n ct. Cancellat i on of bail already granted req u ires demonstration of superven i ng circumst a nces such as misuse of li b erty, tampering with evide n ce, intimidat i on of witnesses or deliberate e v asion of the judicial process. Mere dissatisfa c tion with the reasoning of the C ourt below which has granted the bail or t h e seriousness of the offence, b y itself, is not sufficient to re c all such an order. Learned counsel has laid m uch emphasis that the allegati o ns against t h e respondent No.2 are serious, which according to the petitio n er, ought not to have been considered by the Court below at the time of gran t of anticipat o ry bail. In the considered opin i on of this Court, the petitioner h as not brou g ht any fresh or supervening material before this Court. A mere allegatio n of seriousness of offence with o ut concrete material cannot jus t ify the cancellation of bail. Moreover, such a plea cannot, by itself, render the order gra n ting the bail perverse. The ord e r passed by the Sessions Court i s a
