Prolonged incarceration does not mandate bail where accused is prime conspirator in grave economic fraud.

The applicant, an Assistant Manager (Accounts) since 2009, was accused of siphoning approximately ₹22 Crores from the complainant real estate company by creating sham accounts of fictitious vendors

Following an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) on 23.09.2021, the applicant was arrested on 07.11.2021

The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (over four years and four months) and slow trial progress, noting that only one out of thirty-four witnesses had been partially examined

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s role as the "kingpin," the magnitude of the fraud, and his prior conduct of absconding during the preliminary inquiry

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21

2. Whether the statutory provision of Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. creates an absolute right to bail if the trial is not concluded within the prescribed period

The court applied Section 467 of the IPC (forgery of valuable security), which carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment

It considered Article 21 of the Constitution regarding the right to a speedy trial but evaluated it against the gravity of economic offences as per *Gulfisha Fatima v. State*

The court referenced *P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement* regarding the "triple-test" for bail (flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses)

It further clarified the application of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., relying on *Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh*, which holds that bail under this section is not an absolute right and depends on factors like the nature of the offence and whether delay is attributable to the accused

The court reasoned that while Article 21 is a fundamental right, it must be balanced against the public interest in cases involving large-scale economic fraud affecting public monies

The court distinguished the applicant's case from precedents where bail was granted for seven-year maximum sentences, noting that Section 467 IPC permits life imprisonment

Regarding the "triple-test," the court found the applicant posed a flight risk due to his past conduct of absconding with his family during the police inquiry

It also identified a risk of evidence tampering given the complex redistribution of funds across 28 entities

Finally, the court observed that the trial delay was partially attributable to the accused persons themselves due to the filing of multiple revision petitions, thus negating the benefit of "prolonged incarceration" as a sole ground for bail

The holding clarified that the right to a speedy trial is not absolute and must be weighed against the gravity of the offence, the potential sentence (life imprisonment), and the conduct of the accused

The court concluded that the applicant failed the "triple-test" and was not entitled to relief despite the duration of his custody