Bail refusal under CrPC upheld where courts found no legal infirmity, with liberty to renew applications after charges are framed.

Refusal of bail under Section 439 CrPC was found to disclose no legal infirmity, as the reasons recorded by the Special Judge and the High Court were held sufficient to justify denial of bail. The challenge to the rejection of the bail prayer therefore did not warrant interference, and the refusal was upheld. The Court, however, permitted the petitioners to file fresh bail applications after framing of charges, and petitioner no. 2 was allowed to invoke Section 437 CrPC again in such subsequent application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioners' bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure suffered from any legal infirmity.

Analysis: The Court found no error in the reasons recorded by the Special Judge and the High Court for refusing bail. It held that the challenge to the refusal to entertain the bail prayer did not disclose any legal infirmity warranting interference. The Court also permitted the petitioners to move fresh applications after framing of charges, and petitioner no. 2 was allowed to invoke Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure again in such application.

Conclusion: The refusal of bail was upheld and the special leave petitions were dismissed.

---