Anticipatory bail declined where custody was found necessary for effective investigation into alleged investment-scheme fraud.

Anticipatory bail was refused where allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy arose from investment schemes floated through companies controlled by the petitioner. The Court treated the petitioner as the controlling figure, noted his earlier responsibility for repayment before the Company Court, and relied on the fact that complete particulars of the companies, schemes, assets, receivables and bank accounts had not been disclosed despite repeated directions. It also noted that the sanctioned scheme for debenture holders had not been implemented within the stated timetable. In these circumstances, the Court accepted that custody was necessary for effective investigation and recovery, and declined anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the offences alleged against him.

Analysis: The petition arose from allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy in connection with investment schemes floated through the companies controlled by the petitioner. The order notes that the petitioner was described as the controlling figure and had repeatedly taken responsibility for repayment before the Company Court, while several connected proceedings had already provided interim protection at earlier stages. It was also recorded that the petitioner had not furnished complete details of the companies, schemes, assets, receivables and bank accounts called for by the Court, and that the scheme of arrangement sanctioned for the debenture holders had not been implemented in accordance with the stated time schedule. In these circumstances, the Court accepted the prosecution and intervenors' stand that effective investigation and recovery required the petitioner's custody.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

---