Bail in economic offences cannot be used as punishment when investigation is substantially complete and no interference is shown.

Bail under Section 437 CrPC was held to depend on whether release would secure attendance and avoid interference with the process, not on punishment for the alleged offence. The Court noted that the alleged seizure and enquiry had substantially progressed, the property was already in departmental custody, and the objection based on non-cooperation was not supported by the record because the accused had replied to summons and intended to appear. It concluded that economic offences do not create an absolute bar to bail where investigation is not shown to be pending or likely to be hampered, and the bail application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The material on record indicated that the alleged seizure and enquiry had substantially progressed, the property was already in departmental custody, and the objection to bail was founded mainly on alleged non-cooperation. The Court found that the accused had replied to summons and had shown an intention to appear, while the claim of non-cooperation was not borne out by the record. It further held that bail is meant to secure attendance and is not to be withheld by way of punishment, and that economic offences do not create an inflexible bar to bail where investigation is not shown to be pending or likely to be hampered.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to bail and the application was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail cannot be refused as a punitive measure merely because the case involves an economic offence, especially when the investigation is substantially complete and there is no demonstrated risk of interference with the process.

---