Anticipatory bail refused where forged documents, possible insider involvement, and custodial interrogation were central to the investigation.

Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy and may be refused where allegations disclose a serious forged-document racket, possible insider involvement, and the need for custodial interrogation. On the stated facts, goods of very high value were allegedly removed from customs custody on forged documents, suggesting a larger conspiracy and justifying a free investigation. Recovery of the goods and comparison of specimen signatures did not remove the investigative need for custody. The application was rejected because the case required deeper inquiry into the roles of those involved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of a forged-document racket, recovery of goods, and the asserted need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and is not to be granted as a matter of course. On the facts, goods of very high value were alleged to have been removed from customs custody on forged documents, indicating a possible larger conspiracy and involvement of persons from within the customs machinery. The fact that the goods had been recovered and specimen signatures had been sent for comparison did not eliminate the need for custodial interrogation. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner on the footing that entitlement to anticipatory bail depends on the facts of each case, and the present case involved a more serious and complex factual matrix requiring a free investigation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be refused where the allegations disclose a serious offence involving forged documents, possible insider involvement, and the need for custodial interrogation to enable effective investigation.

---