Anticipatory bail declined where alleged investment fraud, dishonoured cheques, and incomplete records justified custodial interrogation.

Anticipatory bail was refused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust matter arising from investment transactions. The court noted that the documents relied on by the applicant were non-disclosure agreements, not valid contracts proving the alleged business tie-up, and that there was no clear explanation for the complainant's funds. It also relied on incomplete audit material and the fact that earlier cheques issued towards repayment had been dishonoured. Because effective investigation required custodial interrogation of the applicant, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged offences.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and dishonest inducement in relation to investment transactions. The materials indicated that the documents relied upon by the applicant were non-disclosure agreements and not valid contracts establishing the alleged business tie-up. The record also did not show a clear explanation of the use of the complainant's money, the audit material was incomplete, the earlier cheques issued towards repayment had been dishonoured, and effective investigation required interrogation of the applicant in custody.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined and the application was rejected.

---