Nikhil Singh v. State of UP (2018) 6 SCC 397: A Misinterpretation of the Bail Provisions?

I completely disagree with the judgment in Nikhil Singh v. State of UP (2018) 6 SCC 397. The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 438 (2) of the CrPC, which empowers High Courts to grant bail in case of a custodial interrogation under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC. The court held that the High Courts can't grant anticipatory bail in such cases where the police is not allowed to arrest the person. I think this is a misinterpretation of the provisions. In most cases, anticipatory bail is necessary for ensuring the protection of personal liberties, especially in cases where the accused is from a weaker section of society. This judgment can have significant implications on CUET PG Law, especially for those who aspire to specialize in constitutional law or human rights.