Summary
The father of a murdered schoolchild challenged interim anticipatory protection granted to senior school-management respondents. The Court upheld protection until filing of the challan because the investigation then disclosed no evidence pointing to their complicity. It rejected alleged suppression and expressly left the ongoing investigation and merits open.
Issues
- Whether direct approach to the High Court and alleged nondisclosure of withdrawn Bar resolutions invalidated bail protection.
- Whether the investigation material justified interference with conditional interim bail until the challan.
Held
- The record did not establish knowledge of withdrawal of the Bar resolutions when the petitions were prepared and lodged. Suppression or fraud was therefore not established. In the circumstances, including extensive media coverage, direct recourse to the High Court exercising concurrent section438 jurisdiction was unobjectionable. (¶ 8–9)
- The FIR contained no allegation against these respondents, and the material then collected did not point to their complicity. Mere possibilities in the agency’s response did not require overturning the High Court’s protection while their roles remained under investigation. The decision expressed no final view on guilt or the merits. (¶ 10–12)
- Protection lasted until presentation of the challan and required availability for interrogation, no inducement or threats to witnesses, prior permission before leaving India, and seeking regular bail upon presentation of the challan. (¶ 11–12)
Result
Appeal dismissed, parties bearing their own costs; conditional interim bail until the CBI’s presentation of the challan upheld, without adjudicating the merits of the ongoing investigation.