Interim protection continued after prolonged delay and late implication in supplementary complaint; the appeal was allowed.

Interim protection was continued where the accused had not been arrested for nearly eleven years after the ECIR and was named only in a later supplementary complaint, not in the original prosecution complaint. The Court treated the prolonged lapse of time and the delayed implication as sufficient grounds to interfere and preserve the protection already granted. The appeal was allowed and the interim protection was made absolute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to continuation of interim protection in view of the long lapse of time since registration of the ECIR and the fact that he was named only in the supplementary complaint.

Analysis: The appellant had not been arrested for nearly eleven years after the ECIR was registered. He was not named in the original prosecution complaint and was implicated only in the supplementary complaint filed much later. These circumstances were treated as sufficient to justify interference and continuance of protection.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the interim protection granted to the appellant was made absolute.

---