Anticipatory bail in conspiracy case granted where disclosure statements and a vague witness account were too weak to justify custody.

Anticipatory bail was granted because the prosecution material was found insufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy at the bail stage. The accusations rested mainly on co-accused disclosure statements and a belated witness account of a vague conversation, without any direct overt act attributed to the accused. The Court held that disclosure statements alone were not cogent material, and the witness statement was too uncertain, lacking date or time, to justify continued custodial exposure. Careful scrutiny of the accused's role was required before curtailing liberty, and that threshold was not met.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the allegation against the accused rested mainly on co-accused disclosure statements and a belated witness statement, with no direct overt act attributed to the accused.

Analysis: The material against the accused was examined as one of alleged conspiracy to commit murder. The only incriminating circumstances were the disclosure statements of co-accused and a statement alleging a vague conversation, without date or time, said to have been overheard by a witness. The Court found that disclosure statements by themselves did not constitute cogent material, and the other statement was too uncertain and weak to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy at the bail stage. In view of the need for careful scrutiny of the accused's role before denying liberty, the material was held insufficient to justify continued custodial exposure.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.

---