Subsequent bail without changed circumstances can be cancelled when granted in disregard of a prior reasoned refusal.

A subsequent bail application is maintainable only on a material change in circumstances; where a lower court grants bail shortly after a reasoned rejection by the High Court, without any new factual basis and despite serious head injuries and a medical opinion that the injury was dangerous to life, the order is legally unsustainable. Bail may also be cancelled even without an allegation of misuse where it was granted on irrelevant or extraneous considerations and in disregard of settled principles. On that basis, the cancellation application was allowed, the bail order was set aside, and custody was directed, subject to the accused seeking bail in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail could be granted by the lower court after the High Court had recently rejected the accused's bail application, in the absence of any change in circumstances and despite the seriousness of the injuries; (ii) whether the bail so granted could be cancelled even without a specific allegation of misuse of bail.

Issue (i): Whether bail could be granted by the lower court after the High Court had recently rejected the accused's bail application, in the absence of any change in circumstances and despite the seriousness of the injuries?

Analysis: A subsequent bail application is maintainable only when there is a material change in circumstances. The earlier rejection by the High Court was based on the seriousness of the head injuries and the prima facie involvement of the accused. The lower court granted bail within a short interval, without any new circumstance on record, and also overlooked the medical opinion indicating that the injury was dangerous to life. The order was passed in disregard of the earlier reasoned refusal and without a legally sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The grant of bail by the lower court was unjustified and legally unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the bail so granted could be cancelled even without a specific allegation of misuse of bail?

Analysis: Cancellation of bail is not confined only to cases of misuse. Where bail is granted on irrelevant or extraneous considerations, or in disregard of settled principles of discipline and propriety, the court may cancel it even if there is no allegation that the accused misused the liberty. The gravity of the offence, the nature of the injuries, and the manner in which the impugned order ignored the earlier decision justified interference.

Conclusion: The bail could be cancelled notwithstanding the absence of any allegation of misuse.

Final Conclusion: The application for cancellation of bail was allowed, the bail was set aside, and the accused was directed to be taken into custody, while leaving him free to seek bail in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent bail order passed without any change in circumstances and in disregard of a prior reasoned refusal may be cancelled even without proof of misuse of bail, where the order reflects an erroneous exercise of discretion and abuse of process.

---