Regular bail principles under Article 21 applied where delayed trial, clean antecedents, and parity with co-accused favoured release.

Regular bail was granted where the petitioner was implicated after substantial delay, the co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, and the petitioner had no adverse antecedents. The investigation had reached the stage of filing of the challan and framing of charges, yet no prosecution witness had been examined, which made the prolonged trial pendency significant. The Court applied the settled principles that bail is ordinarily the rule, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the right to a speedy trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; on that basis, the petitioner was admitted to regular bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in the pending criminal case.

Analysis: The petitioner's involvement was noticed after a substantial delay, the co-accused had already obtained bail, the petitioner had clean antecedents, and the investigation had progressed to the stage where the challan was presented and charges were framed, but no prosecution witness had been examined. The Court treated the prolonged pendency of the trial as significant and applied the settled principles that bail is ordinarily the rule, that an accused carries the presumption of innocence, and that the right to speedy trial is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

---