Prolonged pre-trial detention weighed against custody despite prima facie allegations in cheating, forgery and GST evasion proceedings.
Regular bail was granted in a cheating, forgery and GST evasion case because, despite prima facie material suggesting bogus firms, common contact details, bank operations and routing of funds, the petitioners had already remained in custody for about two and a half years, the challan had been filed, charges were yet to be framed and the trial had not commenced. The court treated continued pre-trial detention as unlikely to serve any useful purpose where the case was expected to take considerable time and release on bail was ordered subject to cooperation in the trial.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail in a case alleging cheating, forgery and GST evasion, having regard to the period of custody and the stage of trial.
Analysis: The allegations disclosed a prima facie role of the petitioners in floating bogus firms, using common contact details and bank operations, and routing money through accounts of such firms. At the same time, the challan had been filed long back, charges had not yet been framed, the petitioners had remained in custody for about 2 bd years, and the trial had not even commenced. The amount allegedly involved had also been partly recovered through compounding, and continuation of custody was found unlikely to serve any useful purpose when the trial was expected to take considerable time.
Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to regular bail and their petitions were allowed.
Final Conclusion: Continued pre-trial detention was not justified in the circumstances, and release on bail was ordered with a direction to cooperate in the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case where the accused have remained in custody for a substantial period and the trial has not commenced, prolonged detention may be unjustified even if prima facie material exists against them.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
