Prima facie involvement in bribe-money conspiracy justified refusal of bail in light of recovery and call detail evidence.

Bail was refused where the charge-sheet and investigation material suggested prima facie involvement in a conspiracy to receive and park bribe money. The Court noted that the petitioner was not a public servant but was alleged to have acted as a link between the main accused and other beneficiaries. Regular contact with the main accused, recovery of substantial cash and gold from that accused, alleged parking of ill-gotten money with the petitioner, and call detail evidence were treated as sufficient to indicate participation in the alleged offence. Filing of the charge-sheet did not outweigh this material, and the prayer for release was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of the allegations of conspiracy, receipt and parking of bribe money, and the material collected during investigation.

Analysis: The allegations and charge-sheet material indicated that the petitioner was not a public servant but was acting as a link between the main accused and other beneficiaries. The Court noted recovery of substantial cash and gold from the main accused, the petitioner's regular contact with him, the alleged parking of ill-gotten money with the petitioner, and the call detail evidence supporting his involvement. Although the charge-sheet had been filed, the Court found the petitioner's role to be distinct from that of the income-tax officers and treated the material as sufficient to show prima facie involvement in the alleged offence.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the petitioner's prayer for release was rejected.

---