Repeated complaint on identical allegations cannot justify continued custody where bail was already granted earlier.

Regular bail may be granted where a second complaint repeats substantially identical allegations already considered in an earlier proceeding in which bail was allowed. The HC noted that the later case arose on the same factual foundation as the first complaint and that continued custody would effectively defeat the earlier bail benefit. On that basis, the Court treated further detention as unjustified and granted regular bail, despite the allegations under the Indian Penal Code and GST enactments.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted where a second complaint was lodged on substantially identical allegations after the petitioner had already been granted bail in the earlier complaint.

Analysis: The petitioner was alleged to have committed offences under the Indian Penal Code and under the GST enactments. The Court noted that the later case was based on allegations identical to those in the earlier complaint in which regular bail had already been granted. It further noted that the petitioner had remained in custody and that the benefit of bail was effectively denied by initiating a second complaint on the same allegations.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a subsequent complaint is founded on identical allegations already considered in an earlier proceeding in which bail has been granted, continued custody is not justified and regular bail may be allowed.

---