Regular bail in a commercial lending dispute turns on completed investigation and absence of flight risk or evidence tampering.

Regular bail may be granted in a commercial lending dispute where the investigation is substantially complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and continued custody is not shown to be necessary. The Court treated the nature and gravity of the accusation, the likelihood of abscondence, and any risk of tampering with evidence as governing bail factors, but found no concrete flight risk or specific apprehension of interference. The petitioner had joined investigation on several occasions, the alleged transactions were document-based, and similarly placed co-accused directors had not been arrested. Bail was therefore allowed subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case arising out of a commercial transaction, having regard to the nature of accusation, custodial requirement after filing of the charge-sheet, possibility of abscondence, and apprehension of tampering with evidence.

Analysis: The application was considered on settled principles governing bail, including that the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, likelihood of the accused fleeing justice, and possibility of influencing witnesses are relevant factors. The alleged transactions were supported by documents, the investigation had substantially progressed, the charge-sheet had been filed, and no specific apprehension of flight risk was shown. The petitioner had joined investigation on multiple occasions, the co-accused directors were not arrested, and the dispute arose from a commercial lending arrangement. In these circumstances, continued custody was not shown to be necessary for further investigation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to regular bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In deciding bail, custody can be declined where the investigation is substantially complete and no concrete risk of abscondence or interference with evidence is shown, even in an economic or commercial offence.

---