Prolonged pre-trial custody justified regular bail where trial was early and no risk of absconding or evidence tampering was shown.

Prolonged pre-trial custody can justify regular bail where the trial is at a nascent stage, the accused has no criminal antecedents, and there is no shown risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Court applied the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, together with the presumption of innocence, and found continued incarceration unwarranted because the petitioners had remained in custody for over one and a half years while only two of seventeen witnesses had been examined. Regular bail was granted subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail in view of the stage of trial, period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the settled principles governing pre-trial detention.

Analysis: The petitions arose from the same FIR and were considered together. The Court noted that the petitioners had undergone more than one and a half years of custody, the trial was still at an early stage, and only two out of seventeen witnesses had been examined. It also noted that there was no expressed apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence, and that the case was governed by the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Applying the presumption of innocence and the need to avoid punitive detention before conviction, the Court held that continued incarceration was not justified.

Conclusion: The petitioners were granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged pre-trial custody in a case at the nascent stage of trial, without risk of absconding or interference with evidence, warrants release on bail in accordance with the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

---