Successive anticipatory bail may be granted where cooperation is shown and custodial interrogation is not imperative.

In a successive anticipatory bail application, the HC held that cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the Investigating Officer, willingness to furnish documents, and a material change in circumstances can justify protection under Section 438 CrPC. Applying the principle that arrest should be the last option and personal liberty should be curtailed only when custodial interrogation is imperative, the Court found no showing that arrest was necessary. Anticipatory bail was therefore granted, subject to conditions securing cooperation with the investigation and safeguarding the evidentiary process.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a successive application in view of the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and the settled principles governing arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The application was a successive request for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the applicant had remained without protection for a substantial period after the earlier proceedings, had appeared before the Investigating Officer, and was willing to cooperate and furnish documents. Relying on the principles that arrest should be the last option and that personal liberty should be curtailed only where arrest is imperative, the Court treated the cooperation of the applicant and the change in circumstance as material factors supporting relief.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and protection of the evidentiary process.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused is cooperating with investigation, custodial interrogation is not shown to be imperative, and the facts justify treating arrest as unnecessary except in exceptional cases.

---