https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282785 Bail under Section 439 CrPC was granted because the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for over ninety days, had already been charge-sheeted, and was not shown to require further custodial interrogation. The Court also relied on the petitioner's advanced age, serious cardiac ailment, and the absence of a real apprehension of flight risk or tampering with evidence. Although the allegations concerned an economic offence, the Court reiterated that bail cannot be refused as punishment and that no rigid rule bars bail merely because the accusation is financial in nature. The pending scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act was also treated as a relevant circumstance. en-us Mon, 31 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Sep 2023 22:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282785 Bail under Section 439 CrPC was granted because the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for over ninety days, had already been charge-sheeted, and was not shown to require further custodial interrogation. The Court also relied on the petitioner's advanced age, serious cardiac ailment, and the absence of a real apprehension of flight risk or tampering with evidence. Although the allegations concerned an economic offence, the Court reiterated that bail cannot be refused as punishment and that no rigid rule bars bail merely because the accusation is financial in nature. The pending scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act was also treated as a relevant circumstance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282785