Bail order upheld where only limited recovery was shown and no later circumstance justified reconsideration

Bail interference was found unjustified where the only recovery was 3 kg of smuggled gold and the larger alleged quantity appeared only in the respondents' statements. The bail order was made on the overall facts, and the reference to the offence being bailable was merely incidental. No subsequent circumstance was shown to warrant reconsideration of bail already granted, so the challenge to the bail order failed and the bail order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail order could be interfered with on the ground that the offence was allegedly non-bailable and that the respondents were implicated in possession or dealing with a larger quantity of smuggled gold.

Analysis: The only recovery shown was of 3 kg of smuggled gold, while the remaining quantity was not recovered and was referred to only in the respondents' statements. The bail order was passed after considering the overall facts, and the reference to the offence being bailable was only incidental. No subsequent circumstance was shown to justify reconsideration of the bail already granted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the bail order failed and the order granting bail was upheld.

---