Interim bail under High Powered Committee guidelines depends on individual facts, with relief granted despite absconding co-accused.

In considering interim bail under High Powered Committee guidelines, the Delhi HC stated that inclusion within the listed categories does not create an absolute right to release and each request must be assessed on its own facts. Applying that approach, the Court relied on the petitioner's age, clean antecedents, good jail conduct, prolonged custody, and the absence of credible material suggesting tampering with the investigation. It also held that the mere fact that co-accused were absconding was not, by itself, a reason to deny relief. The petitioner was granted interim bail for 45 days on terms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim bail for 45 days under the High Powered Committee guidelines.

Analysis: The Court noted that inclusion of a case within the High Powered Committee categories does not confer an absolute right to interim bail or suspension, and each request must be assessed on its own facts. Considering the petitioner's age, clean antecedents, good jail conduct, prolonged custody, and the absence of any credible material showing a likelihood of tampering with the investigation, the Court found no basis to deny relief merely because co-accused were absconding.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to interim bail for 45 days on terms.

---