Prolonged pre-trial incarceration can justify regular bail when trial delay leaves substantial prosecution evidence unrecorded.

Prolonged pre-trial incarceration can justify regular bail even where allegations are serious, if the trial remains incomplete and prosecution evidence is progressing slowly. The Court noted that the accused had remained in custody for more than five years and nine months, while only 27 of 51 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Applying the principle that an accused should not be detained indefinitely before conviction, it held that continued custody in the face of substantial trial delay warranted release on regular bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, facing serious GST-related allegations and in custody for a substantial period while the trial remained incomplete, was entitled to regular bail.

Analysis: The petition was examined in the context of the length of custody already undergone, the pace of the trial, and the stage of prosecution evidence. Although the allegations were serious, the record showed that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than five years and nine months, while only 27 out of 51 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court applied the settled principle that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely before conviction and that prolonged incarceration, coupled with delay in trial, can justify grant of bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, especially where the trial is progressing slowly and a substantial part of the evidence remains to be recorded, can warrant grant of regular bail even in cases involving serious allegations.

---