Anticipatory bail in commercial contract dispute granted where allegations were mainly documentary and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Anticipatory bail was justified where the dispute stemmed from commercial agreements between two construction companies and the allegations were founded mainly on documentary material. The Court found the controversy to be essentially one of breach of contract and recovery of money, with disputed rights and obligations capable of examination in civil proceedings. As bank documents had already been collected during investigation, custodial interrogation for recovery of money or documents was not shown to be necessary. Protection from arrest was therefore granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a dispute arising out of commercial agreements where the allegations were founded principally on documentary material and custodial interrogation was claimed to be necessary.

Analysis: The petition arose from competing claims between two construction companies regarding agreements for transfer of flats and development rights. The dispute was found to relate to breach of contract and recovery of money, with both sides asserting outstanding dues under earlier transactions. The allegations in the FIR concerned incomplete implementation of the agreement and alleged third-party encumbrances, but the material was substantially documentary. The investigation had already proceeded to the extent of collecting bank documents, and the need for custodial interrogation for recovery of money or documents was not made out. The Court further noted that the parties' rights and obligations flowing from the agreements were matters that could be examined in civil proceedings.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was held to be justified and the petitioners were entitled to protection from arrest.

---