Regular bail principles favored release where evidence was weak, sanction was pending, and parity supported the applicant's custody relief.

Regular bail was granted where the prosecution case rested largely on stereotyped statements of rice millers and co-accused, with no contemporaneous record linking the applicant to the alleged policy decision or financial benefit. The Court treated the co-accused statements as only corroborative, noted that custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary, and accepted that absence of prosecution sanction would delay cognizance and trial. It also relied on the applicant's custody having become prolonged without any demonstrated risk of flight, tampering, or witness influence, and on parity with co-accused already on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of the alleged role attributed to him in the custom rice milling scam, the evidentiary material collected, the absence of prosecution sanction, the principle of parity, and the likely delay in trial.

Analysis: The allegations against the applicant rested mainly on statements of rice millers and co-accused persons, but the material placed before the Court showed that the statements of a large number of rice millers were stereotyped and mechanically reproduced. The statements of co-accused recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not name the applicant or indicate that any money was intended for him, and such material could only have corroborative value. The Court also noted that no file noting, approval order, correspondence, or contemporaneous document had been produced to show any direct role of the applicant in the alleged policy decision or enhancement of quota or milling charges. It further accepted that prosecution sanction had not yet been obtained, which would delay cognizance and trial, and that the investigation qua the applicant had substantially progressed with the charge-sheet filed. The Court found that continued custody would amount to pre-trial punishment, especially when no specific material showed that the applicant was a flight risk, that custodial interrogation was needed, or that he was likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The Court also relied on parity with co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail.

Conclusion: Bail was granted. The applicant was held entitled to be released on regular bail subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: When the prosecution evidence is largely documentary, the accused is not shown to require custodial interrogation, cognizance is stalled for want of sanction, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, continued detention cannot be justified and bail should ordinarily follow, especially where parity also supports release.

---