Post-charge sheet custody requires concrete justification; individualized role assessment led to bail for one accused and refusal for another.

After filing of the charge sheet, continued detention required concrete material and could not rest on bare apprehension. The Court applied an individualized assessment of each accused's attributed role: Rahul Kothari was not shown to have the Managing Director's representative role, and further custody was treated as unnecessary once investigation had substantially ended, so bail was granted. Vikram Kothari was alleged to be the Managing Director and principal actor in the credit transactions, and the Court treated the allegations, bank exposure, and public-money recovery concerns as sufficient to justify continued custody at that stage, so bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rahul Kothari, after filing of the charge sheet, was entitled to bail in the circumstances of the case. (ii) Whether Vikram Kothari, in view of his alleged role as Managing Director and the material on record, was entitled to bail.

Issue (i): Whether Rahul Kothari, after filing of the charge sheet, was entitled to bail in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The material placed on record showed a distinction in the role attributed to Rahul Kothari and Vikram Kothari. Rahul Kothari was not shown to have played the representative role attributed to the Managing Director, and further detention after filing of the charge sheet was viewed as punitive rather than necessary for investigation. The Court gave primacy to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and found no tangible material to justify continued incarceration at that stage, especially when the charge sheet had already been filed and the apprehension of tampering was not supported by fresh material.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to Rahul Kothari.

Issue (ii): Whether Vikram Kothari, in view of his alleged role as Managing Director and the material on record, was entitled to bail.

Analysis: Vikram Kothari was projected as the Managing Director and the alleged principal actor in the credit transactions. The Court noted that the advances had not been secured as required by banking norms and treated the role attributed to him as materially more serious. On the basis of the allegations, the bank exposure, and the concern regarding recovery of public money and the integrity of the proceedings, the Court found that continued custody could not be dislodged at that stage.

Conclusion: Bail was rejected for Vikram Kothari.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications were decided differently on the basis of the attributed role of each applicant, with release ordered for one co-accused and continued custody maintained for the other.

Ratio Decidendi: After filing of the charge sheet, continued detention must be justified by concrete material and not by bare apprehension, and where the attributed role of co-accused differs materially, bail may be granted to one and refused to another on the basis of individualized assessment.

---