Anticipatory bail justified where custodial interrogation was unnecessary and applicants were seemingly singled out.

Anticipatory bail was found justified where the Court, on the complaint, charge-sheet, surrounding circumstances, and prior orders, accepted that the applicants appeared to be singled out while the principal accused were not proceeded against similarly. It further noted that their questioning had already been completed under an interim order, so custodial interrogation and judicial custody were not required. On that basis, the applicants were directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to the stated conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the material on record and whether custodial interrogation was necessary.

Analysis: The applications were examined on the basis of the complaint, the charge-sheet, the surrounding circumstances, and the prior orders relied upon. The Court found substantial force in the contention that the applicants were being singled out while the principal accused were not proceeded against in the same manner. It also noted that the questioning of the applicants had already been completed pursuant to an interim order and that, in the totality of the circumstances, custodial interrogation and judicial custody were not required.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail and were directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to the stated conditions.

---