As per case facts, the Petitioner filed an FIR against Respondent No.2 for threatening him to compromise another case, with the caller claiming gangster affiliations. The concerned Magistrate granted regular ... bail to Respondent No.2. The Petitioner appealed to the High Court, seeking to quash the bail order, alleging the Magistrate was a distant relative of Respondent No.2 and that the bail was erroneously granted, impacting the ongoing investigation and continuation of threats. The question arose whether the impugned bail order, granted by a potentially biased Magistrate, should be quashed/set-aside. Finally, the High Court found a manifest apprehension of partiality due to the Magistrate's distant relation to Respondent No.2, rendering the impugned Order untenable ab initio. However, considering the significant lapse of time since bail was granted, the Court decided against immediate cancellation. Instead, the impugned Order was quashed, and Respondent No.2 was directed to appear before the CJM/Duty Magistrate by a specific date to seek fresh regular bail, which must be positively decided on the same day. The Court also declined to take action against the Magistrate at this stage as the matter is under administrative review.