Bail in non-bailable offences requires strict threshold review of gravity, evidence, flight risk, and witness tampering before release.

In bail applications, the threshold question is whether the alleged offence is bailable or non-bailable; if non-bailable, the court must assess gravity, evidence, the accused's character and circumstances, flight risk, witness interference, and the wider interests of the State. The High Court erred by granting bail without first proceeding on the footing that the prosecution case disclosed a non-bailable offence and by relying mainly on parity with co-accused, absence of flight risk, and expected trial delay. The alleged offence was of grave character affecting State security, and the commitment order indicated a prima facie case under the non-bailable provision. The grant of bail was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail could be granted where the prosecution case prima facie disclosed a non-bailable offence, and whether the High Court erred in treating the matter as arguable between a bailable and non-bailable offence without first proceeding on the footing that the case was non-bailable.

Analysis: In an application for bail, the first inquiry is whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable. If it is bailable, bail follows under the Code of Criminal Procedure; if it is non-bailable, the court must consider the gravity of the offence, the nature of the evidence, the character and circumstances of the accused, the possibility of absconding, the risk of witness tampering, and the larger interests of the State. The High Court granted bail without applying that approach and relied mainly on parity with co-accused, the perceived absence of flight risk, and the likely duration of trial. The offence alleged was of a grave character affecting State security, and the commitment order showed a prima facie case under the non-bailable provision.

Conclusion: The grant of bail was erroneous; the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---