Anticipatory bail cannot be disturbed merely because investigation is still pending without fresh incriminating material.

Anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court was not set aside merely because no arrest had yet been attempted and the investigation remained incomplete. The challenge failed where the applicant did not show fresh incriminating material or any demonstrated complicity beyond suspicion, and the pending probe alone was insufficient to keep the bail order under indefinite challenge. On the material available at the time of grant, the court found no basis to interfere with the order. The petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting anticipatory bail was liable to be set aside merely because no move had yet been made to arrest the respondent and the investigation was still incomplete.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail had been granted by the Sessions Court after considering the material then available. The challenge was pursued without a clear update on the status of investigation or any demonstrated incriminating material showing the respondent's complicity beyond suspicion. The pending nature of the probe did not justify keeping the grant of bail under challenge indefinitely.

Conclusion: The challenge to the anticipatory bail order was rejected and the petition failed.

---