Bail may be granted absent concrete risk of witness interference or evidence tampering, subject to strict conditions.

Bail may be granted where the prosecution shows no concrete basis for apprehending tampering with evidence or influence over witnesses, and the trial is not likely to be prejudiced. The Court found that the complaint concerned an old alleged offence, progress in the prosecution was limited, the complainant's evidence was largely recorded, and no material showed any remaining vulnerability of evidence. On that factual basis, the ordinary rule favouring bail applied, and release was ordered subject to strict conditions securing attendance and preventing interference with the trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants were entitled to be released on bail despite the prosecution's apprehension that they might tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

Analysis: The complaint related to an alleged offence said to have been committed many years earlier, and the prosecution had made limited progress. The main witness was the complainant himself, whose evidence was substantially recorded, and no specific material was shown to indicate that any evidence remained vulnerable to tampering. The only basis for refusal of bail was the apprehension of interference with the trial, but that apprehension was not supported by any concrete circumstance at the stage then reached. In these circumstances, the Court assessed the matter on the totality of facts and held that the ordinary rule favouring bail could operate without jeopardising the prosecution, subject to strict conditions to secure attendance and non-interference.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to bail, subject to conditions, and the refusal of bail was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be granted where no reasonable basis is shown for the apprehension that the accused will tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and the prosecution case is not likely to be jeopardised.

---