Anticipatory bail cancellation justified where grave corruption allegations and custodial interrogation were necessary for effective investigation.

Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy that must yield where the allegations are grave and effective investigation requires custodial interrogation. In matters involving alleged corruption and misappropriation of public funds, the need for a free, fair and effective investigation may outweigh continued pre-arrest protection. On the stated facts, the investigation was found to have been impeded because custodial interrogation could not be undertaken, so cancellation of anticipatory bail was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail was justified in view of the allegations of corruption, misappropriation of public funds, and the need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The relief of anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be assessed on the facts of each case, with due regard to the need for a free, fair, and effective investigation. In a case involving serious allegations of criminal misappropriation of public money and offences under the anti-corruption law, the Court found that the investigation had been impeded because custodial interrogation of the accused could not be undertaken. The gravity of the accusations and the investigative necessity outweighed the plea for continued pre-arrest protection.

Conclusion: The cancellation of anticipatory bail was upheld and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not succeed, and the order cancelling anticipatory bail remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be cancelled where the allegations are grave, involve corruption or misappropriation of public funds, and custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation.

---