Bail after non-arrest depends on merits, with gravity of allegations and witness-tampering risk still controlling release decisions.

Non-arrest during investigation does not create an automatic right to bail in a non-bailable offence. After charge-sheet and appearance before the court, bail must be decided on the merits under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including the gravity of the allegations, the material in the charge-sheet, the risk of absconding, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Bombay High Court rejected the argument that summons appearance alone entitled the applicants to release, and distinguished the authorities relied on by them. In grave economic offences, the court will assess bail on settled statutory criteria rather than on the sole ground that arrest was not made during investigation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to bail merely because they had not been arrested during investigation and had appeared before the court after filing of the charge-sheet, and whether the court was bound to grant bail without independently assessing the seriousness of the accusations and the risk of tampering with evidence.

Analysis: The applications arose from a charge-sheeted criminal case involving grave economic allegations. The applicants relied on the principle that arrest during investigation had not been sought and that, on appearance pursuant to summons, they should be released on bail. The Court held that the statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not create an automatic right to bail in non-bailable offences merely because the investigating agency did not arrest the accused during investigation. Once the accused appears before the court after cognizance, the court must decide bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on settled bail parameters, including the gravity of the accusations, the material in the charge-sheet, the possibility of absconding, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the applicants and held that they did not lay down a rule of automatic bail in serious offences. Given the nature of the allegations, the Court found that the prosecution had shown sufficient grounds to oppose release on bail.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to bail as a matter of course, and the bail applications were liable to be rejected. The decision is against the applicants and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The court reaffirmed that in grave economic offences, bail must be decided on the merits of the case and the statutory bail criteria, and not on the sole ground that the accused were not arrested during investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-arrest during investigation does not confer automatic entitlement to bail in a non-bailable offence; upon appearance before the court after charge-sheet, bail must be determined on merits under the governing bail provisions, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the risk of interference with the administration of justice.

---