Anticipatory bail in disproportionate assets case refused where unexplained wealth and ongoing vigilance investigation showed a serious corruption allegation.

Anticipatory bail was refused in a prosecution alleging possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court noted that the material indicated acquisition of movable and immovable assets far in excess of the petitioner's known income, that the vigilance investigation was still ongoing, and that the assets had not been satisfactorily explained. Treating the matter as a serious economic offence involving alleged misuse of official position and corrupt conduct, the Court found no basis to exercise extraordinary bail discretion. The prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The allegation related to acquisition of movable and immovable assets far in excess of the petitioner's known income. The material placed before the Court showed an ongoing vigilance investigation and supported the prosecution case that the assets had not been satisfactorily explained. In a matter of this nature, the Court found no reason to exercise the extraordinary discretion of anticipatory bail when investigation was still continuing and the accusation disclosed a serious economic offence involving misuse of official position and alleged corrupt conduct.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the prayer was rejected.

---