Top Highlights

• he respondent is definitely wrong when it says that because the appellant was evasive in his reply, because he was not cooperating with the investigation, therefore, he was rightly arrested and now should be continued in detention. It
• It appears that only after the learned Special Judge granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case on 20.06.2024 (which was stayed by the High Court on 21.06.2024 on oral mentioning) that CBI became active and sought for custody of the appellant which was granted by the learned Special Judge on 26.06.2024.
• laying down that the legislative policy against the grant of bail will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time.5 The courts would invariably bend towards ‘liberty
• n our considered view, although the procedure for the Appellant’s arrest meets the requisite criteria for legality and compliance, continued incarceration for an extended period pending trial would infringe upon established legal principles and the Appellant’s right to liberty, traceable to Article 21 of our Constitution.
• The Appellant has been granted interim bail by this Court in the ED matter on 10.05.2024 and 12.07.2024, arising from the same set of facts. Additionally, several co-accused in both the CBI and ED matters have also been granted bail by the Trial Court, the High Court, and this Court in separate proceedings.

Domain