Bail order must be reasoned: revisional scrutiny was available, the grant was set aside, and custody and conditions were tightened.

An order granting bail at the inception of a criminal prosecution was treated as amenable to revisional scrutiny and not barred as a mere interlocutory order under Section 397(2) CrPC. The court required reasons in writing for release on bail and found the impugned order cryptic and unsupported, making the grant unsustainable. On the consequences, the principal accused was directed into judicial custody for a limited period to aid investigation, the other accused were required to attend the investigating agency daily for one month, and the existing bail conditions were enhanced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order granting bail in the circumstances of the case was an interlocutory order so as to bar revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the order granting bail without recording reasons could be sustained in view of the statutory requirement of reasons for release on bail. (iii) What consequential relief should follow in relation to custodial remand, continued attendance, and enhancement of bail conditions.

Issue (i): Whether an order granting bail in the circumstances of the case was an interlocutory order so as to bar revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: An order granting bail made at the inception of the prosecution was treated as a final order for purposes of revisional scrutiny and not as a mere interlocutory order. The supervisory jurisdiction of the higher court could be invoked where the grant of bail was alleged to be unjustified at the threshold, and the bar under Section 397(2) was held inapplicable to such an order.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable and the objection based on Section 397(2) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order granting bail without recording reasons could be sustained in view of the statutory requirement of reasons for release on bail.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the court releasing an accused on bail to record reasons in writing. The impugned order was found to be cryptic and unsupported by reasons. The absence of reasons, coupled with the nature of the alleged smuggling operation and the need to preserve the investigation, led to the conclusion that the grant of bail was unjustified.

Conclusion: The bail order was unsustainable and was set aside in respect of the respondent against whom custodial remand was directed.

Issue (iii): What consequential relief should follow in relation to custodial remand, continued attendance, and enhancement of bail conditions.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between the role of the principal accused and the remaining respondents. It held that the principal accused should be taken in judicial custody for a limited period to facilitate investigation, while the others could be directed to attend the investigating agency daily. The bail amounts already granted to the remaining respondents were found to be inadequate having regard to the seriousness of the offence and were enhanced.

Conclusion: The principal accused was directed to be remanded to judicial custody for seven days, the other respondents were directed to attend the investigating agency for one month, and the bail amounts were enhanced.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail order succeeded in part, resulting in interference with the original grant of bail, temporary custodial remand for one respondent, continued attendance obligations for the others, and enhanced bail conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: An order granting bail at the inception of a criminal prosecution must be supported by reasons, and where such an order is unjustified on its face it is open to revisional interference notwithstanding Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---