Samir Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Samir Agrawal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 34/2024 registered at Police Station Sarsiwan for offences under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that unknown persons broke into a mobile tower room and stole 24 Amara Raja 600 Ah batteries. During the investigation, co-accused were arrested, and based on their statements, the applicant was implicated. The applicant deals in the purchase and sale of scrap. The stolen batteries were allegedly sold through several intermediaries, eventually reaching the applicant from Kaushal Sahu. The applicant claimed ignorance of the batteries being stolen and submitted his GST registration certificate to demonstrate his business. He also cited his father's medical condition and an existing ad-interim bail.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It took into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the submissions made. Specifically, the Court noted that the persons who committed the theft were other co-accused, and the stolen batteries reached the applicant through different channels. The applicant, who deals in scrap purchase and sale, purchased the batteries from Kaushal Sahu. The Court granted anticipatory bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The ad-interim bail granted earlier was made absolute, subject to the applicant complying with standard bail conditions, including making himself available for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, and appearing before the trial court until the disposal of the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of receiving stolen property (batteries) and his prior criminal history, and if the applicant's claim of bona fide purchase without knowledge of theft is a valid defence at this stage? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was unaware the batteries were stolen, having purchased them from Kaushal Sahu, who had obtained them through a chain of transactions. He presented his GST registration to show his legitimate scrap business. He also mentioned his father's illness and that Kaushal Sahu, from whom he purchased the batteries, had been granted bail. The applicant contended that the FIRs against him were based on memorandum statements of co-accused, similar to the initial FIR against unknown persons. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant is a habitual offender with three other similar crimes registered against him. However, the State did not dispute the applicant's account of how the stolen batteries reached him.