Bail principles applied where the accused was not named in the FIR and had only a limited assigned role.

The applicant was granted bail in connected IPC bail applications because he was not named in the FIR and was not shown to be a director, signatory or shareholder of the main company said to have launched the Bike Boat Scheme. The Court also noted that his company had allotted commercial space to the complainant-side entities, possession had been taken, and the relevant property had been attached against the principal accused while his company accounts were not attached. On the assigned role and surrounding circumstances, and applying settled bail principles, bail was allowed without any opinion on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused applicant was entitled to bail in the two connected bail applications arising from the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The applicant was not named in the first information report and was not shown to be a director, signatory, or shareholder of the main company said to have launched the Bike Boat Scheme. The material placed before the Court indicated that the applicant's company had allotted commercial space to the complainant-side entities, possession had been taken, and the relevant property stood attached in proceedings against the principal accused, while the applicant's company accounts were not attached. In view of the assigned role, the surrounding circumstances, and the settled principles governing grant of bail, the Court found it fit to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail, and both bail applications were allowed.

---