Prolonged pre-trial custody and parity with co-accused can justify bail where trial completion remains uncertain.

In non-bailable offences, bail discretion must be exercised judicially by weighing the seriousness of the accusation, the punishment, the evidence, and the risk of witness interference. The text notes that nearly seven years of custody, absence of charge-framing, and no realistic prospect of timely trial completion supported release pending trial. It also treats parity as relevant, since similarly placed co-accused had already obtained regular or anticipatory bail, and the trial record still required transfer and translation, making prompt conclusion uncertain. Bail was granted subject to conditions, reflecting the balance between liberty and trial safeguards.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants, accused of serious offences and in custody for nearly seven years without commencement of trial, were entitled to bail pending trial. (ii) Whether the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused and the apparent inability to conclude the trial within a reasonable time justified release on bail.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants, accused of serious offences and in custody for nearly seven years without commencement of trial, were entitled to bail pending trial.

Analysis: In considering bail in non-bailable offences, discretion must be exercised judicially with due regard to the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses. The Court noted that the appellants had remained in custody for nearly seven years, charges had not yet been framed, and the material placed before it did not permit a conclusion that the trial would conclude within a reasonable time. The prolonged incarceration, in these circumstances, weighed heavily in favour of release.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to bail pending trial.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused and the apparent inability to conclude the trial within a reasonable time justified release on bail.

Analysis: The Court took note that several co-accused had already been granted regular or anticipatory bail by different courts, including in comparable factual settings. It also found that the records were still to be transferred and translated, making early conclusion of the trial uncertain. These factors, together with the absence of any concrete basis for presuming speedy completion of the case, supported parity and reinforced the case for bail.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to bail on considerations of parity and delay.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted to both appellants on specified conditions, and the appeals stood finally concluded.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious criminal case, prolonged pre-trial custody coupled with an uncertain prospect of trial completion, especially where similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail, can justify grant of bail subject to safeguarding conditions.

---