Documentary evidence and completed investigation justified regular bail in a demonetisation-related conspiracy case, with custody held unnecessary.

Regular bail was granted in a demonetisation-related conspiracy case where the allegations were largely documentary and centred on fund transfers through the petitioner's firms. The Court found that the core transactions originated with other accused, while the petitioner's role was limited to later transfers and possible limited monetary benefit. It also noted that the investigation as to the petitioner was complete, no further recovery was required, the material was not likely to be tampered with, and the main accused and some co-accused had not been arrested or had already obtained bail. Continued custody was therefore held unnecessary, subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in the alleged demonetisation-related conspiracy case.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner were primarily documentary in nature and concerned transfer of funds through the petitioner's firms. The material indicated that the core transactions originated from other accused persons, while the petitioner's alleged role was confined to later transfers and a possible limited monetary benefit. The Court also noted that the main accused and other co-accused had not been arrested or had already been granted bail, that the investigation qua the petitioner was complete, that no further recovery was required, and that the evidence was documentary and not likely to be tampered with. In these circumstances, continued custody was not considered necessary.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.

---