https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437296 Interference with an already granted bail order under inherent jurisdiction is justified only where the order is perverse, illegal, based on irrelevant material, or where cogent supervening circumstances show misuse of liberty or prejudice to a fair trial. The challenge here was brought under s. 482 CrPC rather than by cancellation under s. 439(2) CrPC, and the court noted that the bail order had considered the statutory scheme of s. 212(6) of the Companies Act, including the proviso favouring a woman accused. As there was no material showing flight risk, tampering with evidence, influence over witnesses, or breach of conditions, the bail order was upheld. en-us Thu, 06 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 May 2023 18:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437296 Interference with an already granted bail order under inherent jurisdiction is justified only where the order is perverse, illegal, based on irrelevant material, or where cogent supervening circumstances show misuse of liberty or prejudice to a fair trial. The challenge here was brought under s. 482 CrPC rather than by cancellation under s. 439(2) CrPC, and the court noted that the bail order had considered the statutory scheme of s. 212(6) of the Companies Act, including the proviso favouring a woman accused. As there was no material showing flight risk, tampering with evidence, influence over witnesses, or breach of conditions, the bail order was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 06 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437296