Regular bail in alleged housing fraud refused where active participation, fund diversion and flight risk justified a strict approach.

Regular bail was declined in an alleged housing-project fraud involving diversion of buyer funds and non-delivery of units. The Court treated the case as an economic offence marked by alleged deep-rooted conspiracy, public loss, and active participation by the accused as a director and authorised signatory. Prolonged custody and possible trial delay were not treated as decisive where the record indicated knowledge of the transactions and a risk of fleeing justice. Bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in an offence involving alleged siphoning of funds and non-delivery of housing units.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed diversion of a substantial amount collected from home buyers, abandonment of the project, and active involvement of the petitioner as a director and authorised signatory during the relevant period. The Court treated economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracy and public loss as requiring a strict approach at the bail stage. The prolonged custody and likely delay in trial were held not to be the sole considerations for release where the material on record indicated active participation, knowledge of the transactions, and a possibility of the accused fleeing justice.

Conclusion: Bail was declined.

---