Anticipatory bail on co-accused disclosure alone requires independent incriminating material before custody can be justified.

Anticipatory bail was considered where the only material against the applicant was a co-accused's disclosure statement. The Court noted that a person named in such a disclosure may be interrogated, but custody is not justified unless independent incriminating material exists beyond that statement. As no evidence apart from the disclosure had been collected, and the applicant had local roots, stable employment, first-offender status, and no real risk of absconding, anticipatory bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the only material against the applicant was the disclosure statement of a co-accused and no independent incriminating evidence had been collected.

Analysis: The applicant was sought to be implicated in a case under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court noted that the investigating agency could interrogate a person named in the disclosure statement of a co-accused, but custody could not be justified unless some independent incriminating material, apart from such disclosure, existed against the applicant. On the facts, no evidence beyond the co-accused's disclosure had been collected. The Court also took into account the applicant's employment, local roots, first-offender status, and the absence of any real apprehension of absconding.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.

---