Prolonged custody and parity with co-accused justified bail where trial had not begun and delay was likely.

In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Supreme Court granted bail where the accused had been in custody for a substantial period, the complaint had been filed but charges were not framed, and the trial had not commenced. The Court treated the likely delay in conclusion, given the large number of proposed witnesses, as a material factor favouring release. It also relied on parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail. On the overall circumstances of prolonged incarceration and delayed trial, the refusal of bail was set aside and bail was ordered subject to the trial court's conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the stage of trial, length of custody, and parity with co-accused.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for a substantial period, the prosecution complaint had been filed, but charges had not yet been framed and the trial had not commenced. The Court noted that the prosecution proposed to examine a large number of witnesses, indicating that the proceedings would take considerable time to conclude. The Court also took into account that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail and that the appellant was entitled to parity. Considering the overall circumstances, including prolonged incarceration and the delay in commencement of trial, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to bail, and the refusal of bail by the High Court was set aside.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellant, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the trial court, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters, prolonged custody, absence of commencement of trial, likely delay in conclusion of proceedings, and parity with co-accused can justify release on bail.

---