Prolonged custody without commencement of pre-charge evidence warranted bail despite no finding of wilful procedural delay.

Bail may be granted where an accused has remained in custody for about one year and two months and pre-charge evidence has not commenced despite an earlier direction to complete it. Although no wilful failure to conclude the evidence was found, substantial efforts were required to advance the proceedings. The prolonged custody warranted intervention, resulting in bail being granted and the refusal of bail being set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted where the appellant had remained in custody for about one year and two months and recording of pre-charge evidence had not commenced.

Analysis: Despite the earlier direction for completion of pre-charge evidence, its recording had not begun. No wilful attempt by the respondent to conclude that evidence was found, although substantial efforts towards its completion were required from the respondent. The continued custody period warranted intervention.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellant, and the order refusing bail was set aside.

---