Is the length of incarceration one factor only, with no minimum period serving as a yardstick for granting bail?

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — ss.19, 43D(5) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.212 — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Bail — Harbouring — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.19 — Harbouring — Shelter and concealment of identity — Held: Knowingly enabling proclaimed offenders to stay, camouflaging their true identities and arranging their phone connections prima facie amounts to harbouring. (¶45) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.19 — Persons not named in the Schedule — Charge not premature — Held further: That the persons harboured are still under trial and are not named in the Schedule does not defeat the charge, since that would defeat the purpose of s.43D(5). (¶46, 47) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Constitution of India — Art.21 — Bail — Three parameters pending reference — Held further: Pending the reference, bail rests on the role prima facie attributed, the period of incarceration and the tempo of trial, read with Art.21. (¶33) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Length of incarceration — No minimum yardstick — Held further: The length of the period served is one factor only and no minimum period is a yardstick. Appeal dismissed. (¶49, 53)