Pre-arrest bail and interrogation restraint in a serious FERA probe were unsustainable where they impeded effective investigation.

Judicial directions restraining arrest and fixing the venue, timing, and manner of interrogation in a serious FERA investigation were unjustified because they impeded the investigating agency's control over a continuing statutory inquiry. The Court emphasised that pre-arrest bail stands on different considerations from post-arrest bail, and that blanket protection against arrest, together with supervision of interrogation logistics, can reduce interrogation to a formality. The seriousness of the allegations and the accused's prior conduct were not properly weighed. The anticipatory bail order and the related restraints were therefore held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's order restraining arrest and fixing the venue, timing, and manner of interrogation in a serious FERA investigation, and the accompanying anticipatory bail order, were sustainable.

Analysis: The statutory inquiry was at a serious stage and the investigating agency was entitled to decide the place, time, and manner of interrogation. A blanket protection against arrest, coupled with judicial supervision of interrogation logistics, would impede effective investigation and convert interrogation into a mere formality. The considerations governing pre-arrest bail are materially different from those relevant to post-arrest bail. The surrounding circumstances, including the seriousness of the allegations and the prior conduct of the accused, were not properly appreciated while granting and continuing the protection.

Conclusion: The directions restraining arrest and regulating interrogation were unjustified, and the anticipatory bail order could not be sustained.

---