Prolonged incarceration can justify bail relief when surrounding facts support interference with the impugned order.

Prolonged incarceration, read with the surrounding facts, justified interference with the impugned order and grant of bail. The appellant had remained in custody for more than four years, and the record also noted reversal of the properties, while anticipatory bail had earlier been granted and later cancelled for breach of conditions. On that factual matrix, the order was set aside and bail was granted subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order deserved to be set aside and bail granted to the appellant in view of prolonged incarceration and the surrounding facts.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for more than four years. The record also noted reversal of the properties and that anticipatory bail had earlier been granted and later cancelled for breach of conditions. In these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and bail was granted to the appellant, subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may impose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged incarceration, considered with the surrounding facts, can justify setting aside the impugned order and granting bail subject to appropriate conditions.

---