Prolonged pre-trial custody and limited role can justify regular bail without examining the merits of GST fraud allegations.

Regular bail may be granted where the accused has remained in custody for a prolonged period, is not shown to be the principal offender, and further detention would serve no useful purpose. In this GST fraud matter, the accused was alleged to have facilitated a fake firm's registration and operation, but the court did not enter into the merits of the allegations. Noting that he had already spent more than two years and three months in custody and that his role appeared limited, the court held that regular bail was warranted on furnishing the required bail and surety bonds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in view of the nature of the allegations, the period already spent in custody, and the fact that he was not the main accused.

Analysis: The petitioner was alleged to have facilitated the registration and operation of a fake firm and the related GST fraud, but the Court noted that he had remained in custody for more than 2 years and 3 months. Without entering into the merits of the accusations, the Court considered that continued detention would not serve a useful purpose, especially since the petitioner could not be said to be the principal in the alleged fraud.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged pre-trial custody, coupled with a limited role and absence of a finding that the accused is the main offender, can justify grant of regular bail without examining the merits of the accusations.

---