Anticipatory bail in a serious economic offence was declined where allegations showed fraud, account falsification, and fund diversion.

Anticipatory bail in an economic offence prosecution was considered in light of allegations of fraudulent merchanting trade, falsification of accounts, and diversion of bank funds. The note states that the allegations involved serious financial loss, use of corporate entities to obtain letter of credit funds, and conduct indicating non-cooperation despite awareness of coercive process. It further records that the completion of investigation and the plea of illness were treated as insufficient, given the gravity of the accusations, the material collected, and the settled principles governing discretionary bail. The application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution alleging fraudulent merchanting trade, falsification of accounts, and diversion of bank funds, despite the completion of investigation and their plea of illness.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a serious economic offence involving huge financial loss, falsification of books of account, and use of corporate entities to obtain letter of credit funds that later became non-performing assets. The applicants were shown to have been aware of the coercive process issued by the trial court and yet had not cooperated with the proceedings. In view of the nature and gravity of the accusations, the conduct of the applicants, the material collected in investigation, and the settled principles governing anticipatory bail, the plea based on illness and absence of custodial interrogation was found insufficient to justify discretionary protection.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail and the application was rejected.

---