Successive bail applications require a real change in circumstances, and bail should not be cancelled where custody is no longer necessary.

Successive bail applications are maintainable only when there is a real change in facts or law justifying departure from an earlier refusal, and the same factual matrix cannot support a fresh grant of bail. The later view based on no substantial investigation after a stated date was unsustainable because no new circumstance had emerged. Even so, bail need not be cancelled or re-arrest ordered where investigation has progressed, the accused has cooperated, and custodial interrogation is no longer necessary; existing bail may continue on the same terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the second bail application could be entertained in the absence of any material change in circumstances; (ii) whether the respondent's bail required cancellation or re-arrest.

Issue (i): whether the second bail application could be entertained in the absence of any material change in circumstances.

Analysis: Successive bail applications are permissible only where there is a change in facts or law warranting departure from the earlier view. The earlier rejection had proceeded on the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation. The later bail order relied on the absence of substantial investigation after a particular date and on the same factual matrix that was already available when the first application was argued. No fresh circumstance was shown to justify a different result.

Conclusion: The finding that there was a material change in circumstances was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent's bail required cancellation or re-arrest.

Analysis: Although the impugned order's reasoning on change in circumstances could not be sustained, the investigation had substantially progressed and the respondent had already cooperated with the inquiry. In view of the elapsed time and the absence of any present necessity for custodial interrogation, curtailing liberty by directing re-arrest was not warranted.

Conclusion: The respondent was not required to be re-arrested and was permitted to remain on bail on the same terms and conditions.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not succeed in securing cancellation of the bail, and the respondent's liberty under the existing bail order was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent bail application can be entertained only on a real material change in circumstances, and where custodial detention is no longer necessary, bail should not be cancelled or retracted merely because the earlier order's reasoning is found deficient.

---