Bail in economic offence cases may be granted where custody, health, and lack of flight risk favour release.

Bail under Section 439 CrPC was granted because the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for over ninety days, had already been charge-sheeted, and was not shown to require further custodial interrogation. The Court also relied on the petitioner's advanced age, serious cardiac ailment, and the absence of a real apprehension of flight risk or tampering with evidence. Although the allegations concerned an economic offence, the Court reiterated that bail cannot be refused as punishment and that no rigid rule bars bail merely because the accusation is financial in nature. The pending scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act was also treated as a relevant circumstance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the allegations of economic offence, the stage of investigation, and the petitioner's medical condition.

Analysis: The Court considered that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for over ninety days, had already been charge-sheeted, and was not shown to be required for further custodial interrogation. It also noted the petitioner's advanced age and serious cardiac ailment, together with the absence of any material suggesting a real apprehension of flight or tampering with evidence. While acknowledging that the case involved an alleged economic offence, the Court applied the settled principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and that no rigid rule excludes bail merely because the allegation is of an or financial offence. The pending scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 was also noticed as a relevant circumstance.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner on conditions.

---