Documentary forgery allegations did not justify arrest where investigation was joined and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Anticipatory bail was granted in a forgery prosecution relating to an allegedly forged power of attorney. The Court treated the matter as primarily documentary, noted that the applicants had already joined investigation, and held that the absence of the original document alone did not justify custodial interrogation. It also considered that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, the applicants had roots in the State, and no credible risk of absconding or tampering with evidence was shown. As photocopies and certified copies remained available, investigation could continue without arrest, subject to conditions protecting the process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged forgery of the power of attorney and related offences.

Analysis: The allegations arose from a documentary dispute connected with company proceedings and prior disputes between the parties. The applicants had already joined the investigation on several occasions, and the Court found that the non-availability of the original power of attorney by itself did not warrant custodial interrogation. The offences alleged were triable by a Magistrate, the applicants were permanent residents with roots in the State, and no reasonable apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence was shown. The Court also noted that photocopies and certified copies of the document remained available and that the investigation could continue without arrest.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute is predominantly documentary, the accused have joined investigation, and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary, anticipatory bail should ordinarily be granted subject to conditions safeguarding investigation.

---