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 in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment and utilisation of input tax credit, and whether continued custody was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Analysis: The petitioner had remained in custody for more than two months, the main accused had already been enlarged on bail, the petitioner's antecedents were stated to be clean, and no recovery was shown from his premises. The order also proceeded on the basis that interrogation of other persons was still underway and that indefinite detention would serve no useful purpose. The Court applied the settled principles that the grant of bail is the general rule, that an accused enjoys the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, and that the right to speedy trial is an element of Article 21. In that background, continued incarceration was found to be unjustified.
Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the petitioner was released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds before the competent court.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a compelling necessity for further custodial detention, and where liberty is balanced against the presumption of innocence and the right to speedy trial, regular bail may be granted even in serious fiscal allegations.