Bail on stringent conditions where investigation was near completion and no witness tampering or antecedents were shown.

Bail was granted to an appellant facing allegations under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act because the investigation was nearing completion, no attempt to tamper with prosecution witnesses was shown, and no antecedents were established. The Court treated these factual considerations as sufficient to justify release while protecting the proceedings through stringent conditions. It required regular and punctual appearance before the Trial Court, cooperation in the trial, and preserved liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant caused delay in the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, facing allegations under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, was entitled to be enlarged on bail pending completion of investigation and trial.

Analysis: The investigation against the appellant was nearing completion, with assurance that it would be completed within six weeks. The material before the Court did not disclose any attempt by the appellant to tamper with prosecution witnesses, and there were no antecedents shown against him. In view of these factual considerations, the Court held that bail could be granted, while safeguarding the process by imposing stringent conditions, including regular and punctual appearance before the Trial Court and cooperation in the trial. Liberty was also reserved to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant caused delay in the trial.

Conclusion: The appellant was found entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the trial and the orderly progress of the proceedings.

---