Regular bail granted after chargesheet filing, documentary evidence, and no shown custodial necessity or flight risk.

Regular bail was granted where investigation was substantially complete, the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets had been filed, and the evidence was largely documentary. The Court found no material showing a risk of absconding, witness influence, or tampering with evidence, and no demonstrated custodial necessity. It also relied on the fact that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail and those orders had not been disturbed by the Supreme Court. Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, the Court held that continued custody was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of the stage of investigation, the documentary nature of the evidence, the absence of custodial necessity, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused.

Analysis: The chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets had already been filed, the material collected by the investigating agency was largely documentary, and the record did not indicate that the applicant was likely to abscond, influence witnesses, or tamper with evidence. The Court also noted that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail and those orders had not been interfered with by the Supreme Court. In bail matters, the Court balanced the seriousness of the allegations against personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the absence of any demonstrated custodial requirement.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the applicant.

---