Bail interference requires cogent supervening grounds, and a reasoned reassessment of record can support continued liberty.

Bail once granted should not be interfered with mechanically, and cancellation is justified only on cogent material showing supervening circumstances, misuse of liberty, or prejudice to a fair trial. The Delhi High Court noted that the accused had cooperated with the investigation, there was no showing of absconding risk, the co-accused had already obtained bail, and the trial court had reassessed the record, including the FSL report, before granting relief. On those facts, no ground was found to disturb the bail order, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the accused was liable to be interfered with in the absence of supervening circumstances or a showing that bail would prejudice the fair trial.

Analysis: The petition challenged the subsequent bail order passed after the accused had remained in custody for some time and after the trial court reconsidered the material, including the FSL report and the surrounding circumstances. The Court reiterated that cancellation or interference with bail is not to be done mechanically. Once bail is granted, interference is justified only on cogent grounds such as misuse of liberty, interference with the administration of justice, or other circumstances showing that continued release is no longer conducive to a fair trial. On the facts, the accused had cooperated with investigation, had not been shown to be likely to abscond, the co-accused had already obtained bail, and the trial court's view was based on a reasoned reassessment of the record.

Conclusion: No ground for interference with the bail order was made out, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail once granted should not be cancelled or interfered with mechanically, and interference is warranted only on cogent material showing supervening circumstances, misuse of liberty, or prejudice to a fair trial.

---