Bail parity and women's proviso do not compel release where prima facie money trail and ongoing investigation justify custody.

Parity with a co-accused did not by itself justify release on bail in a serious economic offence, and the statutory proviso for women under Section 437(1) CrPC was treated as enabling rather than automatic entitlement. The Court relied on the alleged role of the petitioner as a promoter-director and major stakeholder, the continuing investigation, and documentary material indicating a money trail and prima facie involvement in the diversion of public deposits collected under livestock schemes. Because the allegations disclosed a deep-rooted conspiracy, substantial public loss, and risk of prejudice to the investigation, custody was not disturbed and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity, being a woman, and the stage of investigation in a serious economic offence case.

Analysis: The petitioner was alleged to have been a promoter director and major stakeholder of a company that collected huge deposits from the public under livestock schemes and diverted substantial funds to her accounts. The Court noted that the alleged conduct involved contravention of the securities law framework governing collective investment schemes, that further investigation on important aspects was still continuing, and that documentary material showed money trail and prima facie involvement. The Court also held that parity with a co-accused is only one consideration and does not compel release on bail. The statutory proviso relating to women under Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found to be enabling and not an automatic entitlement. In an economic offence involving deep-rooted conspiracy, huge public loss, and possible prejudice to the investigation, the Court held that custody could not be disturbed.

Conclusion: Bail was not granted and the plea was rejected.

---