Economic offence gravity is relevant in bail, but cannot alone defeat regular bail absent concrete risk factors.

Gravity of an alleged economic offence may be weighed in a regular bail application along with flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses, but it is not a standalone bar to bail. The decision must remain case-specific, and sealed-cover material should not be used to record merits findings at the bail stage. On the facts stated, the accused was not shown to be a flight risk, there was no concrete basis to fear interference with evidence or witnesses, and continued custody was unnecessary, so regular bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a regular bail application, the gravity of an alleged economic offence could be considered in addition to the triple test of flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether, in a regular bail application, the gravity of an alleged economic offence could be considered in addition to the triple test of flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The settled approach to bail remains that liberty is the rule and refusal is the exception, but gravity of the offence is also a relevant factor. In economic offences, the seriousness of the charge, the nature of the material, and the severity of punishment may legitimately be weighed along with the ordinary bail considerations. At the same time, gravity is not a standalone bar to bail, and the decision must remain case-specific. The Court also disapproved the practice of recording findings on the merits of accusations on the basis of sealed-cover material while considering bail.

Conclusion: The gravity of the offence could be considered, but only as an additional factor and not as a conclusive ground to deny bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellant had already remained available for custodial interrogation for a substantial period, had been found to be not a flight risk, and there was no acceptable basis to hold that he would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The material relied upon by the prosecution was largely documentary, the investigation could continue with the appellant on conditions, and his age and health were relevant circumstances. In these facts, continued incarceration was not necessary for the purposes of investigation or trial.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to regular bail.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of bail was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail on conditions, while leaving the merits of the prosecution case open for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail application, gravity of an economic offence is a relevant but not decisive factor, and once the ordinary bail considerations are satisfied, continued custody is unwarranted unless the prosecution shows a concrete risk to investigation, evidence, witnesses, or trial.

---