Anticipatory bail in customs prosecution denied where prima facie material beyond co-accused confession justified custodial interrogation.

Anticipatory bail in a customs prosecution was refused because the Court found a prima facie role supported by material beyond a co-accused's confession. The allegations indicated the petitioner's involvement in arranging travel, tickets, conveyance, and delivery of concealed foreign currency, and the investigation was still at a crucial stage. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for an effective investigation and that discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not warranted where there was a real risk of interference with the inquiry.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a customs prosecution where the prosecution relied not only on the co-accused's confession but also on other witness statements and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed a prima facie role of the petitioner in arranging travel, tickets, conveyance, and delivery of the concealed foreign currency. The Court held that the case was not one resting solely on the confession of the co-accused and that the investigation was at a crucial stage. In view of the nature of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of interference with the investigation, the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not warranted.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be declined where the prosecution discloses a prima facie case supported by material beyond a co-accused's confession and custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

---