Anticipatory bail turns on each accused's role and need for custodial interrogation in alleged company-account irregularities.

Anticipatory bail was granted to a lady director and a Chartered Accountant where their roles appeared limited, supporting documents were produced, and custodial interrogation was not considered necessary; the investigation was allowed to continue on conditions imposed by the Court. Anticipatory bail was refused to applicants who had served as directors for a longer period, because the complaint raised issues concerning company accounts, income and expenditure, and possible company and foreign exchange-related violations, and their presence was found necessary for investigation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 643/2022 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 644/2022 were entitled to anticipatory bail in the alleged offences; (ii) Whether the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 642/2022 were entitled to anticipatory bail in the alleged offences.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 643/2022 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 644/2022 were entitled to anticipatory bail in the alleged offences.

Analysis: The applications concerned allegations relating to company affairs, alleged irregular accounts and related offences. One applicant was a lady director joined from 23/01/2017, and the other was a Chartered Accountant whose role was confined to audit and who had placed supporting documentary material on record. The materials indicated that custodial interrogation was not for these two applicants and that the investigation could proceed with the conditions imposed by the Court.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 643/2022 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 644/2022.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 642/2022 were entitled to anticipatory bail in the alleged offences.

Analysis: The applicants in this application were directors for a longer period, and the complaint disclosed questions regarding the company's accounts, income and expenses, and possible breach of company and foreign exchange-related norms. The Court found that their presence was required for investigation and that the allegations did not justify grant of anticipatory bail at that stage.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused to the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 642/2022.

Final Conclusion: The order granted pre-arrest protection to two applicants while declining the same relief to the remaining applicants, leaving the investigation to continue subject to the imposed conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail depends on the role of each accused, the need for custodial interrogation, and whether the available material shows that investigation can proceed without arrest.

---