Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a case alleging conspiracy in framing and implementation of the excise policy, having regard to the gravity of allegations, prima facie material, and the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Analysis: The allegations disclosed a serious economic offence involving a claimed conspiracy in the making of the excise policy, with the petitioner occupying a highly influential public office. The record referred to statements of excise officials and other material indicating prima facie involvement, while the prosecution also asserted risks of witness influence and interference with evidence. At the stage of bail, the Court applied the settled principles of prima facie assessment, the nature and gravity of accusation, the possibility of tampering with evidence, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses, and held that economic offences of this nature warrant a cautious approach. The Court also found that the petitioner's position and the nature of the witnesses made the apprehension of influence relevant, and that parity was not available on the facts.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail.