Bail in excise evasion allegations requires individual assessment; economic-offence seriousness alone does not justify continued detention.

Bail in alleged clandestine manufacture and central excise duty-evasion matters should be assessed on the individual circumstances rather than denied automatically because the allegations concern an economic offence. The notes identify relevant safeguards as the maximum punishment, magistrate-triable nature of the alleged offences, filing of the complaint and framing of charges, parity with a co-accused granted bail, the official character of material witnesses, and whether continued detention is necessary. They state that these factors supported grant of bail while recognising the seriousness of economic offences.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in an alleged clandestine manufacture and central excise duty-evasion case.

Analysis: The alleged offences were punishable with imprisonment up to five years, triable by the Magistrate, and the complaint had been filed and charges framed. The co-accused had been granted bail, the material witnesses were official witnesses, and continued detention was not shown to be necessary. Although economic offences are serious, they do not warrant automatic denial of bail; personal liberty and the applicable bail safeguards required assessment of the individual circumstances.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail.

---