Bail granted after prolonged custody and parity with co-accused, as trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

Prolonged custody, an unframed-charge stage, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial justified release on bail where the accused stood on the same footing as co-accused already enlarged on bail. The Supreme Court took an overall view that continued incarceration was not justified for bail purposes and granted bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds and complying with the trial court's conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in view of the stage of trial, the period of custody, and parity with co-accused.

Analysis: The appellant had been in custody for a considerable period, the complaint had been filed but charges were yet to be framed, and the prosecution proposed to examine a large number of witnesses, indicating that the trial would take time to conclude. The appellant also stood on the same footing as co-accused who had already been granted bail. Taking an overall view of these circumstances, continued incarceration was not considered justified for the purpose of bail.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellant, subject to furnishing bail bonds and compliance with the conditions imposed by the trial court.

---