Bail interference standard requires perversity or supervening grounds; recall was refused absent flight risk or witness tampering.

Interference with a bail order is confined to cases where the discretion was exercised perversely, illegally, arbitrarily or unjustifiably; cancellation of bail, by contrast, requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances. Applying that distinction, the court treated the challenge as one to the correctness of the bail order, found the allegations to rest mainly on documentary and electronic material, and noted no basis to treat the accused as a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence. No misuse of liberty or supervening circumstance was shown, so the request to recall bail failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the respondent should be recalled or set aside on the ground that the grant of bail was an improper exercise of discretion and that the respondent was likely to obstruct investigation, influence witnesses, or tamper with evidence.

Analysis: The challenge was treated as one to the correctness of the order granting bail, not as a cancellation of bail for breach of conditions. The governing test for interference with a bail order is whether the discretion was exercised perversely, illegally, arbitrarily, or unjustifiably, while cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The allegations rested largely on documentary and electronic material, and there was nothing to show that the respondent was a flight risk or that he would interfere with witnesses or evidence. No misuse of liberty after grant of bail was shown, and no supervening circumstance justified revocation of the bail already granted.

Conclusion: The order granting bail did not warrant interference and the petition seeking recall of bail failed.

---