Regular bail in documentary fraud allegations turns on completed investigation, custody necessity, and parity with co-accused.

Regular bail was found justified where investigation qua the accused had concluded, the allegations were largely documentary, and no compelling necessity for continued custody was shown. The court considered that pre-trial detention cannot be sustained merely on the seriousness of the accusations when there is no real need for further investigation, no demonstrated risk of abscondence or interference with evidence, and parity favours release because similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. The applicant's alleged non-cooperation was assessed against the record, including prior bail orders and production of documents, and continued judicial custody was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail pending trial in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery and wrongful receipt of loan proceeds, where investigation qua the applicant was stated to be complete, the prosecution alleged non-cooperation and abscondence, and co-accused had already been granted bail.

Analysis: The proceedings were at the stage of consideration of bail after supplementary charge-sheet had been filed. The material showed that the allegations against the applicant were substantially documentary in nature and that, insofar as the applicant was concerned, investigation had concluded. The grounds urged by the prosecution for continued custody were examined against the settled principles governing bail, including the limited role of the seriousness of the offence, the requirement that custody be justified by a real necessity such as further investigation, risk of abscondence, or interference with evidence, and the relevance of parity where similarly placed co-accused had already obtained bail. The allegation of non-cooperation was considered in the context of the record, the prior bail orders, the production of invoices, and the applicant's right to silence and fair-trial rights.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to regular bail, and continued judicial custody was found unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation qua the accused is complete, the case is primarily documentary, and no compelling necessity for custodial detention is shown, pre-trial incarceration should not be continued merely because the allegations are serious or because other cases are pending, especially when co-accused have been granted bail.

---