Anticipatory bail on co-accused disclosure statement alone, where no recovery or spot apprehension justified custodial arrest.

Anticipatory bail was granted where the accused was not apprehended at the spot and his implication rested only on a co-accused's disclosure statement. The Court held that the admissibility and evidentiary value of such a statement would be examined at trial, and that no stronger material was shown to justify custodial arrest for investigation. Relief was made subject to joining the investigation, cooperating with the agency, and complying with the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and his implication rested solely on a disclosure statement.

Analysis: The petitioner was not found in possession of the contraband at the spot and the case against him was founded only on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused. The admissibility and probative value of such a statement would be tested at trial. In these circumstances, and considering that the petitioner's alleged involvement was not supported by direct recovery or apprehension, the Court found that custodial arrest was not warranted for the purpose of investigation.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to joining investigation, cooperating with the investigating agency, and complying with the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: Relief against arrest was allowed on the basis that the petitioner's implication was not founded on material beyond a co-accused's disclosure statement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused is nominated only on the basis of a disclosure statement and is not apprehended at the spot, anticipatory bail may be granted subject to conditions if no stronger material justifying custodial arrest is shown.

---