Repeat bail requires independent scrutiny; criminal intimidation allegations must show actual alarm and a real, immediate threat.

Bail on a repeat application requires an independent assessment of the facts and the prima facie nature of the accusation, rather than refusal solely because an earlier bail plea was rejected on merits. The note also stresses that allegations of criminal intimidation must disclose material showing an actual alarm or conduct suggesting a real and immediate threat of death or grievous hurt. On the stated facts, the absence of clear evidence of such alarm or threat weighed against continued detention, and bail was treated as justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the facts alleged, including whether the material disclosed a prima facie case of criminal intimidation and whether rejection of the repeat bail application was justified.

Analysis: The allegations in the case diary and first information report were examined to see whether the alleged threat was of such a nature as to cause alarm and attract the graver part of criminal intimidation. The absence of any clear material showing that the complainant was actually alarmed, or that the threat was backed by conduct indicating a real and immediate threat of death or grievous hurt, weighed against the case for continued incarceration. The rejection of the repeat bail application merely because an earlier application had been declined on merits was held to be an improper approach, since the court considering bail must independently assess the facts, the prima facie nature of the accusation, and the relevance of continued detention.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail and the rejection of the repeat application was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The accused was directed to be released on furnishing the required bond and surety, reflecting a bail order granted after finding that the circumstances did not warrant further detention.

Ratio Decidendi: In considering bail, the court must independently assess whether the allegations disclose a prima facie case and must not reject a repeat application solely because an earlier application was dismissed on merits, especially where continued detention lacks adequate legal justification.

---