New Delhi, Mar 31 A Delhi court has refused anticipatory bail to a man involved in hoarding and black marketing of LPG cylinders amid the prevailing LPG situation triggered by the West Asia conflict, as it noted the investigation requires further custodial interrogation to unearth the black marketing racket.
Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar Gautam was hearing the anticipatory bail of Mukesh Kumar, who has been charged under Section 7 (violation of contravening orders prohibiting hoarding in this case) of the Essential Commodities Act (ECA) and Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The counsel for the accused argued that Section 7 of the ECA carries limited punishment and is bailable in nature, citing four high court precedents from Madhya Pradesh and Assam. He also argued that Kumar is ready to join the investigation, and recovery has already been effected. He sought parity of bail as the co-accused in the case has already been granted bail.
The court stated that the precedents cited by the accused's counsel are not binding on this court and are only persuasive in nature.
It also noted that the law on grant of anticipatory bail is well settled as it cited four Supreme Court judgements to justify its denial of bail.
It elaborated that according to apex court precedents, deep-rooted conspiracies require a different approach in considering bail, especially when investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation is required.
Since custodial interrogation is far more effective than questioning a person on anticipatory bail, it reaffirmed the Supreme Court judgement that held anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy rather than a matter of routine.
"This court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail," said the court in its order dated March 28, dismissing the bail plea.
The court also noted the allegations pertained to illegal procurement and black marketing of LPG cylinders amidst the ongoing crisis, indicating "organised activity having wider ramifications on public safety and distribution system".
It rejected the argument on parity of bail, as it noted that the role and conduct of the co-accused is materially different from that of Kumar, who is stated to be owner of the vehicle used to commit the offence and even alleged to be the main conspirator.
"This court also cannot lose sight of the fact that offences relating to black marketing of essential commodities, particularly LPG cylinders, assume greater seriousness in times of rising prices and increased public dependence, thereby affecting the larger public at large. Economic offences of this nature, committed in times of rising prices of essential commodities, strike at the very root of public welfare," the court added.
The court clarified that the recovery having been effected does not remove the requirement of custodial interrogation in cases of organised illegal activity and conspiracy.
It also harshly criticised the accused for not joining investigation prior to the bail hearing, supporting the State's argument for further custodial interrogation as it said, "The investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation appears necessary to unearth the complete chain of procurement, transportation and illegal distribution."
The court disposed of the anticipatory bail application and clarified none of its finding went into the merits of the case.
