Anticipatory protection after final report may be granted where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and the case rests mainly on documentary material.

Anticipatory protection may be granted even after filing of the final report where custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary and the case substantially rests on documentary material. The Court noted that the investigating agency had not sought custody during the long investigation period, and the immediate apprehension was remand on appearance before the trial court rather than arrest at the instance of the agency. On that basis, the need for custody at that stage was not made out, and bail was directed in the event of arrest on terms fixed by the Special Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants, who had cooperated during investigation and against whom summons had been issued for appearance after filing of the final report, were entitled to anticipatory protection against arrest.

Analysis: The Court noted that the investigating agency had not sought custodial interrogation during the long period between registration of the FIR and filing of the final report. The material against the appellants was largely documentary in nature, and the immediate apprehension was of remand by the Trial Court upon appearance in response to summons, rather than arrest at the instance of the investigating agency. In these circumstances, the need for custody at that stage was not made out.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to protection, and bail was directed in the event of arrest, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary and the case substantially rests on documentary material, anticipatory protection may be granted even after filing of the final report, particularly when the apprehended custody arises upon appearance before the trial court.

---