Saileshbhai Bhikhubhai Dangar vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Shaileshbhai Bhikhubhai Dangar, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11189005210954 of 2021, registered at Morbi Taluka Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 278, 284, 285, and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The applicant is a trader operating under the name Dhruv Trader, with a GST number, and had sold a liquid substance to one Yogeshbhai via a tax invoice. The State opposed the bail application, arguing that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the grave nature of the allegations.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the applicant is a trader who sold the alleged liquid by way of a tax invoice. Considering the applicant's role as attributable from the FIR and his availability for trial, the Court held that custodial interrogation was not essential for the purpose of investigation. The Court reasoned that the applicant's business activities, as evidenced by the GST number and tax invoice, did not inherently warrant pre-arrest detention. Therefore, the Court found no reason to decline pre-arrest bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, presence at the police station on a specified date, not inducing witnesses, not obstructing investigation, furnishing address, not leaving India without permission, and depositing his passport. The Court also clarified that the Investigating Agency could apply for police remand before the Magistrate, and the applicant would cooperate with such proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations and his role as a trader, and whether custodial interrogation is essential for the investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact) The applicant argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and that the offence is bailable. He contended that his role was limited to that of a trader selling goods via a tax invoice. The State argued that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious, necessitating custodial interrogation for further investigation. The State's contention was that the applicant's involvement required deeper scrutiny.