Anticipatory bail in money-laundering case granted where custodial interrogation was unnecessary and liberty concerns could be managed by conditions.

Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering matter was granted where the petitioner's alleged role was distinct from the main accused, the conduct attributed to him related to a period when he was about 15 to 17 years old, and the investigating agency had not arrested him during investigation. The Court held that, on the cumulative facts, custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary and any apprehension of interference with the investigation or witnesses could be addressed through protective conditions. Pre-trial custody was therefore found unnecessary, subject to safeguards.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the money-laundering case, having regard to the petitioner's age at the relevant time, the nature of the attributed role, and the absence of prior arrest by the investigating agency.

Analysis: The petition was considered on the cumulative effect of the surrounding circumstances relevant to bail. The allegations attributed to the petitioner were treated as distinct from the main accused, and the Court noted that the alleged conduct pertained to a period when the petitioner was about 15 to 17 years old. The Court also noted that the investigating agency had not arrested the accused during investigation and that any apprehension of interference with the investigation or witnesses could be addressed through protective conditions. In such facts, pre-trial custody was found unnecessary, and the balance favoured liberty subject to safeguards.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to the imposed conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be granted where the circumstances, taken cumulatively, do not show a need for custodial interrogation and the apprehensions of misuse of liberty can be neutralised by suitable conditions.

---