Anticipatory bail in foreign exchange investigations: health concerns matter, but courts should not pre-set interrogation modalities.

In serious foreign exchange offence investigations, anticipatory bail is not warranted merely because the accused asserts a medical condition; health concerns do not create immunity from arrest or interrogation, though the investigating agency must safeguard the detainee's health. The Court also held that it should not prescribe fixed pre-interrogation modalities, including mandatory reference to cardiologists, where such directions could impair effective investigation, and that the agency should retain operational freedom subject to appropriate medical precautions. The refusal of pre-arrest bail was upheld, the restrictive interrogation conditions were set aside, and the order of the Sessions Judge was restored with an extension for use of seized documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged foreign exchange violations and the respondent's asserted medical condition; (ii) Whether the Court could impose advance conditions governing the manner of interrogation by directing reference to cardiologists at AIIMS.

Issue (i): Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged foreign exchange violations and the respondent's asserted medical condition.

Analysis: The allegations related to serious economic offences under the foreign exchange law. The respondent's health concerns did not make him immune from arrest or interrogation. At the same time, the investigating agency was required to keep his medical condition in view and protect his health while in custody.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the refusal of pre-arrest bail was upheld against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could impose advance conditions governing the manner of interrogation by directing reference to cardiologists at AIIMS.

Analysis: The investigating authority must have freedom to adopt suitable measures to safeguard the detainee's health, but the Court should not prescribe fixed pre-interrogation modalities that may impair effective investigation in economic offences. Section 41 of the foreign exchange law placed a statutory limit on retention of seized documents, and public interest required that the agency be allowed to use those documents within an extended period.

Conclusion: The conditions imposed on the investigating agency were set aside and the interrogation was left to be conducted by the agency with appropriate health safeguards.

Final Conclusion: The Directorate's challenge succeeded, the respondent's cross-challenge failed, and the order of the Sessions Judge was restored while the time for use of the seized documents was extended for a further period.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious economic offence investigations, anticipatory bail is not to be granted merely on the basis of health concerns, and courts should not pre-emptively dictate interrogation modalities so long as the agency can reasonably safeguard the detainee's health.

---