As per the case facts, the petitioners were denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in connection with a crime registered at a CID Police Station, involving various sections of ... the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The issues in the petitions for anticipatory bail were identical, and the challenge was against the same High Court order. One petitioner had already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and the investigating officer was seeking police remand after judicial remand. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after being denied anticipatory bail. The question arose whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, considering the nature of the offenses and the High Court's denial, and whether a police remand could be sought after an accused was already in judicial custody. Finally, the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions without delving extensively into the prosecution's case, as it had been exhaustively reproduced by the High Court. The Court stated that it would be for the concerned court to decide whether a police remand can be sought once an accused is already remanded to judicial custody. The Supreme Court also clarified that if any application for regular bail is filed by the petitioners, the concerned court should consider it on its own merits by applying the well-settled principles for granting regular bail in accordance with the law.