Bail granted on parity and lack of direct role where the accused was not named in the FIR or linked to investor funds.

Bail was considered in light of the material collected during investigation, the applicant's alleged lack of direct role, and parity with similarly placed co-accused. The applicant was not named in the FIR, was not shown to be a director, office bearer, or manager of the main company, and the record did not show that he induced investors or received any amount in his personal account. The Court also relied on the bail orders granted to co-accused and the settled principles governing bail, while recording no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case. On that basis, the applicant was held to have made out a case for bail and the bail applications were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of the material collected during investigation, the alleged absence of direct role, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused.

Analysis: The applicant was not named in the first information report and was not shown to be the Director, office bearer, or manager of the main company. The record did not show that he had induced investors to invest in the scheme or that any amount had been credited to his personal account. The Court also considered the bail orders passed in favour of similarly placed co-accused and the settled principles governing bail, while recording no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The applicant made out a case for bail and the bail applications were allowed.

---