Bail cancellation rejected where investigation had ended, no breach of conditions was shown, and the accused's role was peripheral.

The bail order was not recalled or cancelled because the objection based on pending investigation had become infructuous once the complaint was filed and the matter had moved beyond the investigative stage. The court also noted that the respondent was a young helper-cum-driver, with a role distinct from the main conspirators, and that the earlier bail order had already considered his age, attributed role and surrounding circumstances. As no breach of bail conditions or other material showing abuse of bail was established, the grant of bail was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the respondent warranted recall or cancellation on the grounds of the alleged pending investigation and the gravity of the alleged smuggling offence.

Analysis: The challenge to the bail order was examined on the basis of the alleged pendency of investigation, the recovery of smuggled gold, and the respondent's alleged role in the offence. It was found that the complaint had already been filed and the matter had progressed beyond the investigative stage, rendering the objection based on pending investigation infructuous. The respondent was also treated as a young person engaged as a helper-cum-driver, with the role attributed to him being distinct from that of the main conspirators. The earlier bail order had taken into account the respondent's age, the nature of the role attributed, and the surrounding circumstances. No violation of bail conditions or other material showing an abuse of bail was established.

Conclusion: The request to recall or cancel the bail order was rejected, and the bail granted to the respondent was allowed to stand.

---