Anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation principles applied where joining investigation was treated as sufficient cooperation.

Anticipatory bail was granted where the accused had joined investigation and the State's request for custodial interrogation rested only on an allegation of non-cooperation. The Court treated continued cooperation with the investigating officer as sufficient and held that an accused is not required to make self-incriminating disclosures merely to retain interim protection. As no need for custodial interrogation or other aggravating circumstance was shown, refusal of pre-arrest bail was unwarranted; the order was set aside, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted where the accused had joined investigation but the State sought custodial interrogation on the ground of alleged non-cooperation.

Analysis: The accusation related to alleged bribery in connection with approval of an enhanced cost estimate, but the proceeding concerned only pre-arrest detention at the investigation stage. The Court held that the conduct attributed to the appellant could not be treated as non-cooperation so as to justify refusal of bail, and an accused who joins investigation is not expected to make self-incriminating disclosures merely to retain interim protection. Finding no need for custodial interrogation and no aggravating factor warranting detention, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court, and the appellant was directed to continue cooperating with the investigating officer.

---