Pre-arrest bail declined for breach of interim conditions and inconsistent stand, despite a dispute appearing financial in nature.

Pre-arrest bail was refused where the Court found the applicant's inconsistent stand on his status and business connection, together with material showing repeated pressure calls to the informant, sufficient to indicate breach of interim bail conditions. Although the FIR did not allege impersonation and the dispute appeared to have a financial character, those features did not persuade the Court to exercise the extraordinary discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the applicant. The petition for pre-arrest bail was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with the criminal case in view of the allegations in the FIR, the shifting stand taken by the petitioner, and the alleged breach of the conditions of interim bail.

Analysis: The FIR did not contain the allegation that the petitioner was impersonating as another firm for selling goods, and the dispute appeared to have a financial character. At the same time, the materials placed before the Court showed that the petitioner had taken inconsistent stands regarding his status and business connection. More importantly, the informant produced material indicating repeated calls made to pressure the informant to compromise, which amounted to breach of the conditions on which interim pre-arrest bail had been granted. In these circumstances, the Court found the case unfit for the grant of the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail and the prayer was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-arrest bail may be refused where the materials show breach of interim bail conditions and the Court is not satisfied that discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised in favour of the applicant.

---