Anticipatory bail granted where custodial interrogation was unnecessary and witness-tampering concerns could be met by conditions.

Anticipatory bail was granted despite serious allegations because custodial interrogation was found unnecessary on the facts. The court noted that the occurrence was dated 11.11.2019, the other accused had already been arrested, surrendered and obtained bail, and confessional statements had been recorded. It also relied on the examination of 127 private witnesses, the lapse of substantial time since the occurrence and the earlier bail rejection, and the petitioner's age and willingness to cooperate. The prosecution's concerns about tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses were treated as addressable through bail conditions, so protection from arrest was allowed subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner notwithstanding the serious allegations, the prosecution's plea for custodial interrogation, and the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The Court noted that the occurrence was of 11.11.2019, that the other accused had already been arrested, surrendered, and released on bail, and that confessional statements had been recorded. It also noted that 127 private witnesses had been examined, substantial time had elapsed since the occurrence and since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition, and the petitioner was stated to be aged 69 years and willing to cooperate. On this basis, the Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary and that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution and the intervenor could be addressed by conditions of bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner on conditions.

---