Anticipatory bail in an alleged economic offence refused where custodial interrogation and risk of witness influence remained significant.

Anticipatory bail in an alleged economic offence was declined where the allegations involved bogus contracts, siphoning of public money, and an incomplete investigation into the real beneficiaries. The Court treated the petitioner's role as Managing Director of ITNL and his involvement in the committee that approved the contracts as material to assessing responsibility. It also accepted the need for custodial interrogation, noting that the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses could not be ruled out. Grant of regular bail to some co-accused did not create parity on these facts, and anticipatory bail was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted in a case involving alleged economic offences, having regard to the gravity of the ations, the petitioner's role, and the need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The allegations concerned a large-scale economic offence involving alleged bogus contracts, siphoning of public money, and pending investigation into the real beneficiaries. The material noted the petitioner's position as Managing Director of ITNL and his role in the committee under which the contracts were said to have been awarded. The Court also considered that investigation was still incomplete, the investigating agency sought custodial interrogation, and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses could not be ruled out. The fact that some co-accused had been granted regular bail did not establish parity on the facts of this case.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

---