Prolonged pre-trial detention can justify regular bail where trial progress is slow and Article 21 liberty is at stake.

Regular bail was granted in a GST-related fraud case because the accused had remained in custody for nearly 12 months, charges had been framed, and the trial had made limited progress with only three of twelve prosecution witnesses examined. The HC held that further pre-trial incarceration would serve no useful purpose, especially in light of Article 21 protection of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. The Court left the merits of the allegations to be decided at trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case involving alleged GST-related fraud and allied offences.

Analysis: The petitioner had remained in custody for about 11 months and 26 days. Charges had already been framed, but only three of the twelve prosecution witnesses had been examined and one witness had been given up. The Court held that further incarceration would not serve a useful purpose, particularly in view of the constitutional mandate of personal liberty and the right to speedy trial under Article 21. The merits of the allegations were left to be determined during trial.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged pre-trial detention, when trial is not progressing with reasonable expedition, can justify grant of bail to protect the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial.

---