Continued custody in GST offences requires a specific need for detention; bail may follow where conditions secure trial presence.

In alleged GST-related economic offences, continued custody is not justified merely because investigation is still pending; the court must assess whether specific detention is necessary and whether the accused's presence at trial can be secured by conditions. Here, the complaint had been filed, the material was largely documentary and electronic, substantial recovery had already been made, and no final statutory liability had been determined. On that factual basis, the court found no demonstrated need for further custody and granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions protecting the investigation and trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused arrested for alleged GST offences, in view of the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the necessity of continued custody.

Analysis: The application was considered on the settled principle that even in cases involving serious economic offences, bail is not to be denied as a matter of course and the question must turn on the facts of each case, including the need to secure the accused's presence at trial. The complaint had already been filed, the material relied upon was largely documentary and electronic in nature, substantial recovery had already been made, and no liability had yet been finally determined under the statutory framework. In these circumstances, the Court found that the mere assertion that investigation was continuing did not establish the necessity of further custody.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted, subject to conditions designed to secure compliance and protect the investigation and trial.

Final Conclusion: The accused was enlarged on bail because continued custody was not shown to be necessary, and the Court exercised discretion in favour of liberty with stringent conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In alleged economic offences, continued custody cannot be justified merely by the pendency of investigation when the prosecution does not demonstrate a specific need for further detention and the presence of the accused at trial can be secured by conditions.

---