Anticipatory bail conditions protect personal liberty, and inherent jurisdiction will not disturb the order absent any breach.

In a tax-related prosecution, interference with an anticipatory bail order was found unwarranted where the grant had been made in judicial discretion subject to conditions and no breach of those conditions was shown. The court emphasised that inherent jurisdiction should not be used to disturb such an order absent disobedience, and noted the need to protect personal liberty under Article 21. Liberty remained reserved to proceed in accordance with law if the conditions were later violated.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was called for under the inherent jurisdiction to set aside the order granting anticipatory bail with conditions in a tax-related prosecution.

Analysis: The impugned order had granted anticipatory bail under the relevant criminal procedure provision after exercising judicial discretion and imposing conditions. No violation of those conditions or disobedience of the order was shown. In the absence of any breach, interference under the inherent jurisdiction was not warranted. The order also noted the need to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and reserved liberty to proceed in accordance with law if conditions were violated.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the bail order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order granting anticipatory bail with conditions was left undisturbed, with liberty reserved to take action if the conditions are breached.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of breach of bail conditions, the inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked to interfere with an order granting anticipatory bail passed in the exercise of judicial discretion.

---