Anticipatory Bail Granted When Accused Not Named in FIR and Cooperated with Investigation: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Refusal

Held: The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused was not originally named in the FIR, no incriminating material was recovered from his premises, and he has cooperated with the investigation. The Court observed that when the accused has already been granted interim protection and has complied with directions to appear before the investigating authorities without misusing liberty, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. In such circumstances, refusal of anticipatory bail by the High Court would be unjustified.

Summary: The appeal arose from the refusal of anticipatory bail by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the appellant in connection with a case registered under several provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act relating to the manufacture and distribution of spurious liquor. According to the prosecution, excise officials conducted raids at certain premises and seized large quantities of spurious liquor along with machinery used for bottling and blending liquor. During investigation, it was alleged that the appellant had supplied plastic bottles and caps with government labels which were used in the manufacture of counterfeit liquor brands. Based on statements of witnesses and call records showing communication between the appellant and other accused persons, the appellant was subsequently added as an accused in the FIR. The appellant argued that he was a businessman dealing in bottle caps and plastic products and had no connection with the alleged manufacturing activities. He further contended that he was not initially named in the FIR, no raid was conducted at his premises, and the allegations were based only on statements of co-accused and witnesses. The appellant also pointed out that he had been granted interim protection by the Supreme Court earlier and had appeared before the investigating officer on several occasions and cooperated fully with the investigation. The State opposed the plea contending that the case involved a serious offence of large-scale manufacture of counterfeit liquor and that custodial interrogation of the appellant was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy and financial trail.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order refusing anticipatory bail, and directed that in the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, subject to conditions imposed by the arresting officer or trial court, including cooperation with the investigation and a direction not to influence witnesses.