Custodial interrogation and voice sample requirements defeated anticipatory bail in a prima facie audio-recording case.

Custodial interrogation was considered necessary where the accused was specifically named in the record and audio-recorded conversations prima facie indicated involvement in the alleged offence. The need to identify the speaker in the recordings and to obtain the accused's voice sample supported investigation in custody, while the explanation for not producing the mobile phone was found unconvincing. On that basis, anticipatory bail was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations, the audio recordings, the need for custodial investigation, and the need to obtain a voice sample.

Analysis: The accused was specifically named in the case record. The audio-recorded conversations prima facie indicated involvement in the alleged offence. The need to identify the person speaking in the recordings and to obtain the accused's voice sample made custodial interrogation necessary. The explanation for not producing the mobile phone did not inspire confidence.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted.

---