Bail in a grave murder case cannot rest on vague grounds when eyewitness evidence and a specific role are alleged.

An order cancelling bail could not stand because it was founded on a factual mistake: the criminal antecedent and conviction relied on belonged to a co-accused, not the applicant, so the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. In the murder case, bail granted by the High Court was unsustainable because direct eyewitness attribution, the specific role alleged against the accused, and the seriousness of the charge outweighed vague reliance on investigation delay or an unsubstantiated ailment. The bail order was set aside on merits, and the accused did not secure release.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order cancelling bail could be sustained when it proceeded on facts relating to a co-accused rather than the applicant. (ii) Whether bail granted by the High Court in a murder case involving direct eyewitnesses and serious allegations was justified.

Issue (i): The earlier order rested on a factual mistake, as the criminal antecedent and conviction referred to therein belonged to the co-accused and not to the applicant. An order founded on an incorrect factual basis could not stand.

Conclusion: The earlier order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Bail in a case of murder with direct eyewitness attribution and a specific role to the accused could not be supported on vague considerations such as general delay in investigation or an unspecified ailment. Seriousness of the accusation, available eyewitness material, and absence of a compelling medical necessity militated against release on bail.

Conclusion: The order of the High Court granting bail was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The applicant did not succeed in obtaining bail, and the High Court's bail order was annulled on merits after correction of the factual error in the earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail in a grave offence cannot be sustained on irrelevant or inadequately supported grounds, and an order based on a demonstrable factual mistake is liable to be set aside.

---