Anticipatory bail in serious corruption cases may be refused where custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

Anticipatory bail was refused in a case alleging corruption, cheating and conspiracy because the material collected in investigation, including official records and a technical report, showed more than a mere suspicion of a corruption-linked transaction involving contract enhancement, receipt of bribe money and the petitioner's participation in the proposal process. The Court treated the accusations as serious and held that custodial interrogation was necessary, so the matter did not fall within the exceptional category for pre-arrest bail. The balance between personal liberty and effective investigation was therefore decided in favour of investigation needs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged corruption, cheating and conspiracy.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a serious corruption-linked transaction involving enhancement of a contract, receipt of bribe amount, and participation of the petitioner in the proposal process. The material collected during investigation, including official records and technical report, was treated as sufficient to show more than a mere suspicion. In view of the seriousness of the accusations, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary and that the case did not fall within the exceptional category warranting pre-arrest bail. The balance between personal liberty and the need for effective investigation was resolved in favour of the latter.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious corruption and economic offence cases, anticipatory bail is not to be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist and the Court is satisfied that custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

---