Anticipatory bail requires a fair hearing to the investigating agency before deciding custodial interrogation and bail entitlement.

Anticipatory bail should not be sustained where the investigating agency was not given a reasonable opportunity to file objections before the application was decided. The Supreme Court held that the question of custodial interrogation could not properly be assessed without hearing the agency, and found that deciding the matter the very next day after service left no real chance to respond. The grant of anticipatory bail was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded because the investigating agency was not given reasonable time to file objections before the bail application was decided.

Analysis: The application for anticipatory bail was taken up and decided on the very next day after service on the investigating agency, leaving no real opportunity to place objections on record. The Court found it improbable that the Department had no objection and held that the question whether custodial interrogation was necessary could not properly be decided without hearing the investigating agency. The merits of the bail request, including the need for arrest or custodial interrogation, were expressly left open for reconsideration by the High Court.

Conclusion: The order granting anticipatory bail was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal after hearing both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: An order granting anticipatory bail should not be sustained where the investigating agency has been denied a reasonable opportunity to file objections and the issue is decided without proper hearing.

---