Anticipatory bail declined where grave allegations, fresh investigative material, and custodial interrogation justified refusal.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was refused where the allegations disclosed a serious case of illegal detention and elimination, further material had emerged during investigation, and a graver offence was later added. The Court held that an earlier Supreme Court order did not bar fresh proceedings where permitted by law, and that anticipatory bail does not limit investigation or exclude custodial interrogation when the facts are grave and evidence must be secured. Delay in prosecution was not treated as decisive, as lapse of time alone does not defeat serious criminal proceedings. The petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the gravity of the , the later addition of a graver offence, the alleged delay in prosecution, and the need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier Supreme Court order did not bar fresh proceedings where permissible in law. It further found that the allegations disclosed a serious case involving illegal detention and elimination, that the investigation had gathered further material after the earlier bail order, and that addition of a graver offence justified reconsideration of bail. The Court relied on the settled principle that anticipatory bail does not curtail investigation and that custodial interrogation may be necessary where the facts are grave and evidence needs to be secured. It also treated the delay in prosecution as not decisive, observing that a crime does not die with time and that delay alone does not defeat serious criminal proceedings.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined and the petition was dismissed in favour of the State.

---