Regular bail granted after substantial custody, slow trial progress, and similar bail relief in related cases.

Regular bail was found appropriate where the petitioner had already undergone substantial custody, the trial had reached only about the halfway stage, and there was no realistic prospect of early conclusion. The High Court did not examine the merits of the accusations and treated the petitioner's similar bail relief in other criminal cases as a relevant supporting factor. On these considerations, continued detention was held to serve no fruitful purpose, and regular bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in view of the period of custody already undergone, the progress of the trial, and the fact that similar relief had been granted in other cases.

Analysis: The petition was decided without entering into the merits of the accusations. The Court took into account that the petitioner had undergone substantial custody, that the trial had progressed only halfway, and that there was no likelihood of its early conclusion. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail in other criminal cases of a similar nature. On these considerations, continued detention was found to serve no fruitful purpose.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail.

---