Manish Aggarwal And Another vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, directors of Insta Chemi Private Limited, are seeking bail in FIR No.0018 dated 22.03.2024, registered under Sections 302, 120B of the IPC and Sections 61-A/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, with later additions of Sections 328, 468, 469, 471 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners supplied six drums of ethanol to co-accused Harmanpreet Singh @ Harman, who then used it to manufacture spurious liquor, leading to a death. The petitioners contend they conducted the sale of industrial thinner (ethanol) with full transparency, adhering to legal protocols, with documented transactions including invoices, bills, and GST payments (Annexures P-5 to P-7). They argue the chemical is for industrial use, widely available, and lawfully traded. The prosecution's status report confirms the supply of ethanol and acknowledges the lack of disclosure statements implicating the petitioners in the sale of chemicals or the production of spurious liquor. The investigation is complete, and a challan has been presented.

Held

The Court held that no specific role had been attributed to the petitioners in the crime in question, apart from the fact that they had supplied ethanol to co-accused Harmanpreet Singh @ Harman, who had then allegedly manufactured spurious liquor. It was also not alleged that the petitioners had in any manner connived with the co-accused for manufacturing spurious liquor. The Court noted that the petitioners had been in custody since 19.04.2024, the case of the prosecution rested on documentary evidence, and the investigation stood completed with the presentation of the challan. Consequently, the Court found no likelihood of the petitioners tampering with evidence during the trial. In light of these facts and circumstances, particularly the limited role attributed to the petitioners, the Court deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail. The petition was allowed, and the petitioners were to be admitted to bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that its observations would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, as directors of Insta Chemi Private Limited, can be held liable under Sections 302, 120B of the IPC and Sections 61-A/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, for supplying industrial thinner (ethanol) to a co-accused who allegedly manufactured spurious liquor, when the sale was documented, compliant with GST, and the chemical is for industrial use? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argue that a false case has been planted upon them. They assert there is no disclosure statement from co-accused implicating them, nor is there any evidence of their involvement in the manufacture of spurious liquor. They maintain that their business dealings with Harmanpreet Singh were transparent, adhering to all legal protocols, and supported by invoices, bills, and GST payments (Annexures P-5 to P-7). They further contend that the thinner sold is for industrial use, widely available, and lawfully traded, and the transaction was conducted in good faith and in the ordinary course of business. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State counsel, after seeking an adjournment, submitted that the petitioners supplied six drums of ethanol to co-accused Harmanpreet Singh @ Harman, who used it to manufacture spurious liquor. However, the State conceded that there was no disclosure statement implicating the petitioners and that the transactions were fully documented, including invoices (Annexures P-5 to P-7). The State also conceded that the only role attributed to the petitioners was the sale of chemicals, with no other evidence of their involvement in the manufacture of spurious liquor.