Sisodia Saeedbhai Pratapsinh vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was that the transaction appeared to be a usual trade transaction, and the applicant had paid GST. While his involvement was revealed to some extent, there was no direct evidence of theft of alleged crude oil. The Court considered the nature of the allegations and the fact that the applicant had purchased goods by paying valuable consideration. Without delving into detailed evidence, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The Court also referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, presence during specific interrogation periods, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without permission. The Investigating Agency was permitted to apply for remand, and the Magistrate was to decide it on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Sisodia Saeedbhai Pratapsinh, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail was sought in connection with FIR C. R. No.11191065200461 of 2020, registered with Narol Police Station, Ahmedabad. The FIR pertains to alleged offences under Sections 379, 427, 285, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Sections 15(2) and 15(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of User in Land) Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary and he would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail application due to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C. R. No.11191065200461 of 2020, considering the allegations and the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that he would remain available for the investigation and trial. He expressed willingness to abide by all conditions, including those related to the Investigating Agency's power to seek remand, and requested that his right to oppose such applications on merits be preserved. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence.