Anticipatory bail in a commercial dispute granted where the applicant was not shown to be directly involved in the transaction.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was granted in a dispute arising from alleged non-payment for building material supplied to a construction firm. The material before the HC indicated that the transaction was essentially between the complainant and the applicant's son, the sole proprietor of the firm, and the applicant was not shown on the face of the record to be directly concerned with the dispute. Without expressing any view on the merits, the Court treated the case as fit for protection against arrest, subject to furnishing the prescribed bond and surety and complying with statutory conditions and cooperation requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a dispute arising out of a commercial transaction.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations connected with non-payment for building material supplied to a construction firm. The material placed before the Court indicated that the dispute was essentially between the complainant and the applicant's son, who was the sole proprietor of the firm. On the face of the record, the applicant was not shown to be directly concerned with the transaction giving rise to the dispute. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the case fit for protection against arrest.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant, subject to furnishing the prescribed bond and surety and to complying with the statutory conditions and cooperation requirements.

---