Prolonged abscondence does not preclude bail where continued detention amounts to punitive pre-trial punishment.

On March 31, 2010, the CBI registered an FIR against the petitioner (partner of M/s Divya Rice Mill) and others for allegedly conspiring with bank officials to cheat the State Bank of India by using forged documents to obtain financial facilities worth Rs. 113.50 lakhs.

Investigation revealed a diversion of Rs. 9,50,705 for another mill.

While the petitioner was initially on bail, he absconded during the trial, leading to proceedings under Section 512 Cr.P.C.

During his absence, a co-accused was convicted and sentenced to various terms, including five years for conspiracy.

The petitioner was rearrested on March 12, 2026, and his bail application was subsequently rejected by the Special Judge Anti-corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu, on March 24, 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite having been an absconder for nearly ten years.

2. Whether continued detention during the trial constitutes "pre-trial punishment" in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the power to grant bail.

It relied on the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which establishes that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," as reinforced in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India.

The object of bail is to secure attendance, not to be punitive.

The Court applied the principle from Umarmia vs. State of Gujarat, where the Supreme Court granted bail to an absconder of ten years due to the unlikely completion of trial in the near future.

The court balanced the gravity of the economic offence and the petitioner's past conduct (absconding for ten years) against the principles of personal liberty.

It noted that 31 out of 66 witnesses had been examined in the petitioner's presence before he disappeared.

The court observed that the charges do not carry the death penalty or mandatory life imprisonment, and a convicted co-accused had already received a five-year sentence.

The court reasoned that since the investigation was completed in 2010 and the trial is ongoing, prolonged detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.

It determined that the risk of the petitioner absconding again could be mitigated by imposing stringent financial conditions and travel restrictions rather than through continued incarceration.

The petitioner was ordered to be released subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000, two sureties of like amount, an FDR of Rs. 3,00,000, surrendering his passport, and a prohibition on leaving Jammu and Kashmir without prior court permission. Any violation of these conditions would result in the cancellation of bail.