portion of stolen property or is in possession of the huge amount or gold, which is the subject matter of the crime or any incriminating material is in possession of the accused which was not known to the investigating agency as on the date of granting bail, then the prosecution may bring these facts to the notice of the Court. Thus, during the cause of investigation, it may be found that the accused has played key role in the commission of offence or the valuable property may be in his possession. However, the possibility of making false allegations only with a view to see that the bail granted to the accused is cancelled cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Court has to carefully consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. Unless it appears to the Court that there is some basis, i.e., material to believe those allegations, the Court should be slow in disturbing the earlier order of bail or anticipatory bail. There must be some basis, i.e., some evidence, i.e., reasonable grounds to substantiate the allegations. The Courts must come to a conclusion that cancellation of bail is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and for fair conclusion of the investigation to unearth all the facts or the dimensions of the crime. In some cases, the arrest of the accused may become necessary to ascertain the facts or to recover the valuable property or incriminating material. Order granting anticipatory bail should not hamper the further investigation. Therefore, there is no difficulty to reconsider the order of anticipatory bail with the help of the material subsequently placed before the Court. There is nothing wrong in reconsidering the order of granting bail or anticipatory bail when certain new facts have been brought to the notice of the
