https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303388 Anticipatory bail was considered under Section 438 CrPC where the only material against the petitioner was a co-accused's disclosure statement. The absence of independent incriminating evidence weighed against custodial arrest, while the pendency of investigation did not by itself justify detention. The Court observed that investigation could continue and the police retained the right to question the petitioner, but custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary. Protection from arrest was therefore granted, subject to furnishing the stipulated bond and surety in the event of arrest. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2022 18:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303388 Anticipatory bail was considered under Section 438 CrPC where the only material against the petitioner was a co-accused's disclosure statement. The absence of independent incriminating evidence weighed against custodial arrest, while the pendency of investigation did not by itself justify detention. The Court observed that investigation could continue and the police retained the right to question the petitioner, but custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary. Protection from arrest was therefore granted, subject to furnishing the stipulated bond and surety in the event of arrest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303388