Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail for the alleged offence of money laundering despite his period of custody, the asserted likelihood of delay in trial, and bail granted to a co-accused.
Analysis: The material indicated the petitioner's alleged active involvement in diversion of homebuyers' funds through companies under his and his family's control. His repeated non-compliance with summons, non-execution of several warrants, and alleged attempt to flee at the time of arrest supported the assessment that he posed a flight risk. The trial had reached the post-cognizance stage, the delay in commencement was not attributable to the investigating agency, and the anticipated evidence and number of accused and witnesses did not establish an inordinate or unavoidable delay. Custody since 04.05.2025 was not substantial relative to the maximum seven-year sentence so as to warrant bail independently of the statutory twin conditions. The petitioner did not establish satisfaction of those conditions. Bail granted to a co-accused did not create entitlement to parity, particularly where that order was under challenge.
Conclusion: Regular bail was refused; the petitioner was not entitled to release on bail at this stage.