Anticipatory bail granted where allegations did not show conscious involvement in the alleged criminal design and custody was unnecessary.

Anticipatory bail was granted where the allegations were confined to introducing the complainant to a Chartered Accountant, attending the meeting, and allegedly receiving Rs. 30,000, because the material did not show conscious involvement in the alleged illegal design of the other accused. The Court held that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration were not warranted on those facts, while imposing a condition of cooperation in recovery of the stated amount and permitting cancellation if that cooperation failed. The decision reflects that anticipatory bail may be allowed when the applicant's role does not establish knowing participation in the principal criminal plan and investigation can proceed without custody.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of facilitating the meeting and receiving Rs. 30,000, and whether custodial interrogation was necessary.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner were limited to introducing the complainant to a Chartered Accountant and participating in the meeting, with an asserted receipt of Rs. 30,000. The material did not show that the petitioner knew of any alleged illegal design of the other accused. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration were not warranted, though the Court required cooperation for recovery of the stated amount.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to cooperation in recovery of Rs. 30,000, with liberty to seek cancellation on failure to cooperate.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be granted where the allegations do not establish the applicant's conscious involvement in the main criminal design and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary, subject to conditions securing investigation.

---