Bail in serious economic offences may be refused where witness influence remains a real risk and the prima facie case is substantial.

Bail in a serious economic offence was assessed on the combined footing of flight risk, possible witness influence, and the strength of the prima facie case. The Court held that absconding concerns could be addressed by protective conditions such as surrender of passport and travel restrictions, so that factor did not by itself justify refusal. It accepted that documentary evidence was largely secured, but treated the possibility of indirect witness influence as a real concern at the advanced stage of investigation. In view of the alleged broader conspiracy, sealed-cover material, and the seriousness of the economic allegations, regular bail was declined and custody continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail should be granted in view of the petitioner's alleged flight risk and the availability of protective conditions; (ii) Whether there was any real apprehension of tampering with documentary evidence or influencing witnesses; (iii) Whether the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the material collected during investigation justified denial of bail.

Issue (i): Whether bail should be granted in view of the petitioner's alleged flight risk and the availability of protective conditions.

Analysis: The Court considered the petitioner's long-standing roots in society, prior cooperation, and the absence of any evidence of an attempt to flee. It held that the risk of absconding could be controlled by conditions such as surrender of passport, look-out notices, and restrictions on foreign travel.

Conclusion: This apprehension did not justify refusal of bail.

Issue (ii): Whether there was any real apprehension of tampering with documentary evidence or influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The Court noted that the case largely rested on documentary material already in the custody of the prosecuting agency, the Government, or the court, and that the petitioner was no longer in executive power. It nevertheless considered the sealed-cover material indicating possible attempts to influence witnesses and held that the possibility of indirect influence could not be ruled out at the advanced stage of investigation.

Conclusion: The apprehension of influencing witnesses weighed against grant of bail, while the risk of tampering with evidence was not accepted as a substantial ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the material collected during investigation justified denial of bail.

Analysis: The Court relied on the allegations of a broader conspiracy, the scale of the FDI transactions, the downstream investment issues, and the material in sealed cover indicating contemporaneous meetings, communications, and alleged gratification through entities connected with the petitioner's son. It treated economic offences as a distinct class and considered the stage of investigation to be advanced.

Conclusion: Bail was refused on merits in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the investigative material.

Final Conclusion: The petition for regular bail was declined, and the petitioner remained in custody.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence, bail may be refused where the court finds a continuing apprehension of witness influence and a substantial prima facie case, even if documentary evidence is secured and the flight risk can be managed by conditions.

---