Interim anticipatory bail in a commercial dispute was granted where custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary.

Interim anticipatory bail was granted because the dispute arose from commercial construction transactions and the controversy appeared predominantly civil, with substantial payments already made and only the balance consideration in dispute. The court found no compelling basis for custodial interrogation at the interim stage, and directed the petitioners to join the investigation and appear when required. Protection from arrest remained conditional on cooperation with the investigation and compliance with the bonds and statutory requirements under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim anticipatory bail pending consideration of the petition.

Analysis: The petitioners asserted that the dispute arose out of commercial transactions relating to construction projects and that substantial payments had already been made, with the remaining controversy centring on balance consideration. On that basis, the need for custodial interrogation was not shown to be compelling at the interim stage. The petitioners were directed to join the investigation and to appear as and when required, while the complainant was granted time to file a reply.

Conclusion: Interim anticipatory bail was granted, and in the event of arrest the petitioners were to be released on furnishing the requisite bonds and complying with the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection from arrest was afforded to the petitioners subject to cooperation with the investigation and compliance with statutory conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim anticipatory bail may be granted where the dispute appears predominantly civil in nature and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary at the interim stage.

---