Bail in economic offence cases may be refused where allegations are serious, investigation continues, and parity with a co-accused is not comparable.

In allegations of large-scale siphoning of public funds, the Court declined regular bail because the seriousness of the economic offences, the continuing investigation, and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses weighed against release. Parity with a co-accused was rejected because the petitioner's role was found materially different and more substantial on the record before the Court. The liberty interest was therefore held not to outweigh the investigative concerns arising from the nature of the accusations, and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case involving alleged economic offences, and whether parity with a co-accused justified release on bail.

Analysis: The petition was considered in the context of allegations of a large-scale siphoning of public funds, continuing investigation, and the nature of the offences alleged. The Court weighed the gravity of the accusations, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the stage of the investigation. It also considered the plea of parity with a co-accused, but found the petitioner's role to be materially different and more substantial on the record placed before it. The Court held that in such circumstances, the factors favouring liberty did not outweigh the concerns arising from the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation.

Conclusion: Bail was declined and the petition was dismissed.

---