Anticipatory bail granted where only co-accused disclosure existed and no independent evidence justified custodial arrest.

Anticipatory bail was considered under Section 438 CrPC where the only material against the petitioner was a co-accused's disclosure statement. The absence of independent incriminating evidence weighed against custodial arrest, while the pendency of investigation did not by itself justify detention. The Court observed that investigation could continue and the police retained the right to question the petitioner, but custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary. Protection from arrest was therefore granted, subject to furnishing the stipulated bond and surety in the event of arrest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR and whether the pendency of investigation and the co-accused's disclosure statement justified custodial arrest.

Analysis: The petition was under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The material against the petitioner was confined to the disclosure statement of a co-accused, and there was no independent incriminating evidence shown to justify detention. The Court noted that investigation could continue and that the police's right to question the petitioner was not curtailed merely because custodial interrogation was not permitted. In the circumstances, protection from arrest was found appropriate.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing the stipulated bond and surety.

---