Regular bail principles favour release after completed investigation, no trial evidence, and parity; criminal antecedents alone are not decisive.

Regular bail was granted where the accused had remained in custody since 28.06.2023, investigation was complete, the final report had been filed, and no prosecution witness had yet been examined. The Court treated these factors, together with parity with similarly placed co-accused, as supporting release during trial. It also held that involvement in other criminal cases, by itself, was not a sufficient ground to refuse bail. The decision reflects that completed investigation, the absence of trial evidence at the bail stage, and parity considerations may justify regular bail notwithstanding criminal antecedents.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail during trial.

Analysis: The petitioner was in custody since 28.06.2023, investigation had been completed, the final report had already been filed, and none of the prosecution witnesses had been examined. Bail was also extended to similarly placed co-accused. The Court further noted that involvement in other criminal cases cannot, by itself, be the sole basis to refuse bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Completed investigation, absence of prosecution evidence at the trial stage, and parity with similarly situated co-accused justified grant of regular bail, while criminal antecedents alone were insufficient to deny it.

---