TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to have been granted in a case involving serious allegations of corruption and the need for effective custodial interrogation.
Analysis: Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy and the Court must assess whether its grant would impede investigation. Where allegations disclose a serious corruption case and the investigating agency shows a reasonable apprehension that the accused, because of his position and influence, may hamper interrogation or influence witnesses, custodial interrogation assumes significance. The High Court's approach, treating the request as though it were an ordinary post-arrest bail application and disregarding the investigative concerns, was held to be erroneous. The Court found that effective interrogation of a suspect protected by a pre-arrest bail order may be substantially impaired, particularly in cases involving abuse of high office.
Conclusion: The grant of anticipatory bail was unjustified and the impugned order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: In serious corruption , anticipatory bail should not be granted where it is likely to obstruct effective investigation or custodial interrogation, especially when the accused occupies a position of influence.
TaxTMI 
