Supreme Court of India· 29 September 2026

Can bail be granted in an economic offence with a deep-rooted conspiracy where the investigation is complete and the trial is protracted?

SANJAY BADAYA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2026 INSC 1065 · Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15347 of 2026 with SLP (Crl.) No. 13461 of 2026
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.7(c) Prevention of Corruption …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Bail can be granted in an economic offence with a deep-rooted conspiracy where the investigation is complete and the trial is protracted.

Yes. Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously, but that does not by itself stand in the way of bail where the investigation is complete and the trial is bound to be protracted. Here, chargesheets had been filed, the documentary records and electronic trails were already seized and in the safe custody of the investigating agency, so the apprehension of tampering with evidence was substantially obliterated, and the proceedings were at a nascent stage with voluminous materials.

Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Constitution of India — Article 21 — Regular bail — Economic offences — Pre-trial incarceration — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Regular bail — Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies — Held: Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously, yet bail can be granted on the other features. Where the investigation is complete and the seized materials are in safe custody, the apprehension of tampering with evidence is substantially obliterated. (¶10, 11) Constitution of India — Article 21 — Personal liberty — Pre-trial incarceration — Held further: Pre-trial incarceration cannot masquerade as punitive detention where the commencement and conclusion of the trial are not imminent, and the Court must intervene to safeguard personal liberty. Appeals succeed; impugned orders set aside; appellants released on bail. (¶12, 13, 14, 15)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 10While we have no hesitation to agree with learned counsel for the State that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies must be viewed seriously, and the State is justified in opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the present appellants, however, sight of the other features of the present case cannot be lost. The investigation qua the present appellants is complete, and chargesheets have since been filed. The prosecution’s case predominantly rests on documentary records and electronic trails. Since these materials are already seized and in the safe custody of the investigating agency, the apprehension of tampering with evidence is substantially obliterated.

Paragraph 11The materials to be placed before the Trial Court are voluminous. Presently, the proceedings are at a nascent stage. Admittedly, the charges are yet to be framed and the trial is yet to commence for, inter alia, the following reasons: the investigation against some of the accused persons is still pending; two of the accused persons are absconding; and sanction under Section 19 of the PoC Act was granted on 6th September, 2026 for the prosecution of six (6) other co-accused persons who are public servants. Bearing in mind the sheer volume of evidence that must be led to prove the charges, the trial is bound to be a protracted exercise.

Acts & Sections

s.7(c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s.9 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s.10 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s.12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s.13(1)(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s.13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s.19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s.409 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.466 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.467 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.468 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.471 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.477-A Indian Penal Code, 1860s.120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860Art.21 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SANJAY BADAYA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can pre-trial incarceration masquerade as punitive detention where the commencement and conclusion of the trial are not imminent?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections