Bail in serious cases may still be granted where prolonged custody and stalled trial outweigh the charges against the accused.

Prolonged pre-trial custody, an uncommenced trial, the large number of witnesses yet to be examined, and the appellant's acquittal in similar cases outweighed the seriousness of the charges, so continued incarceration was found unjustified and bail was directed, subject to conditions the trial court could impose to secure attendance. The Court applied a balancing exercise on relevant bail factors and held that where custody is long and trial completion is not in sight, release may be warranted even in serious cases.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused appellant was entitled to bail in view of the prolonged custody, the stage of trial, and the seriousness of the charges.

Analysis: The charges were serious, but the Court balanced that consideration against the length of custody, the fact that the trial had not commenced, the large number of witnesses proposed to be examined, and the appellant's acquittal in similar cases. On that assessment, continued incarceration was not justified and bail was directed to be granted, with liberty to the trial court to impose appropriate conditions to secure the appellant's at trial.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where pre-trial custody is prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, bail may be granted even in serious cases if the balance of relevant factors favours release.

---