Bail orders merit restraint in interference absent supervening circumstances, perversity, or risk to a fair trial.

A discretionary bail order should not be interfered with mechanically; interference is justified only on cogent grounds, supervening circumstances, perversity, or a real risk that liberty will be misused or a fair trial prejudiced. The court considered the material available at the time, including the investigation stage, custody period, cooperation with investigation, the absence of a serious apprehension of absconding, the FSL report, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail. On that basis, no ground was found to disturb the bail order, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the accused called for interference in the absence of supervening circumstances or perversity.

Analysis: The petition challenged the grant of bail on the ground that an earlier bail request had been rejected and that no fresh circumstance justified a different view. The bail order was examined in the light of the material then available, including the FSL report, the stage of investigation, the accused's custody period, his cooperation with the investigation, the absence of a serious apprehension of absconding, and the fact that a co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The governing principle applied was that bail once granted should not be disturbed mechanically and interference is warranted only where cogent reasons, supervening circumstances, or a clear risk to a fair trial are shown.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary order granting bail is not to be interfered with unless there are cogent grounds, supervening circumstances, or a real likelihood that the accused will misuse liberty or prejudice a fair trial.

---