Anticipatory bail in corruption probe granted where alleged gold removal lacked material support and custodial interrogation was unwarranted.

Anticipatory bail was granted in a corruption and conspiracy matter because the petitioner had repeatedly joined the investigation, the allegation of removal of gold was belated and unsupported by material, and no recovery of the alleged gold was made. The Court found that the record from the petitioner's premises did not disclose incriminating material warranting custodial interrogation, and the cash recovery could be explained and examined in accordance with law. Bail was made subject to conditions including furnishing bond, cooperation with the investigating agency, non-travel without permission, and surrender of passport.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act and conspiracy provisions.

Analysis: The petitioner had joined the investigation on multiple occasions, and the allegations regarding removal of gold were belated and unsupported by material showing that such gold was present at the time of the raid. The Court also noted that the complainant had not raised any such allegation for a considerable period despite being represented in related proceedings. No recovery of the alleged gold was made, and the material collected from the petitioner's premises did not disclose incriminating evidence justifying custodial interrogation, apart from cash recovery, for which an explanation had been offered and could be examined in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted, subject to conditions including furnishing of bond, cooperation with the investigating agency, non-travel without permission, and surrender of passport.

---