Anticipatory bail and self-incrimination: cooperation with investigation did not justify denial of pre-arrest protection.

Anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused has joined the investigation and no basis is shown for custodial interrogation. The Court held that cooperation with investigation cannot be treated as a duty to incriminate oneself, and non-production of a mobile phone alone did not justify arrest protection being refused. On those facts, continued pre-arrest protection was warranted, subject to compliance with lawful conditions, and the High Court's refusal of relief was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused has joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary, and whether cooperation with investigation can compel self-incrimination.

Analysis: The appellant had joined the investigation and was cooperating. The only grievance raised was non-production of the mobile phone, but cooperation with investigation does not extend to requiring an accused to incriminate himself. In the absence of grounds warranting custodial interrogation, continued protection from arrest was justified, subject to compliance with lawful conditions.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted and the denial of relief by the High Court was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained pre-arrest protection, with liberty to proceed on bail in the event of arrest, subject to compliance with the stipulated statutory conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused has joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is not necessary, anticipatory bail may be granted, and cooperation with investigation cannot be equated with compelled self-incrimination.

---