Bail on parity and prolonged incarceration granted where allegations lacked clear particulars and charge-sheet was filed.

Bail was granted after the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant's prior resignation before the FIR, the absence of clear particulars about the alleged deposit period, the long incarceration, and the filing of the charge-sheet. The Court also noted that a similarly placed co-accused had already been released on bail and that the prosecution did not dispute that parity. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the case fit for bail, subject to personal bond, sureties and stated conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the case, having regard to the nature of allegations, the period of incarceration, the stage of the trial, and the bail already granted to a co-accused.

Analysis: The application was considered on the basis of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record, the accepted resignation of the applicant prior to the lodging of the FIR, the absence of clear particulars as to the period when the disputed was allegedly deposited, the long period of incarceration, and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed. The Court also noted that the prosecution did not dispute the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the case fit for grant of bail.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant on furnishing personal bond and sureties, subject to specified conditions.

---