Dheeraj Ahuja vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Dheeraj Ahuja, approached the High Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 376 dated 07.09.2023, registered at Police Station Chandhut, District Palwal, for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 61(1) of the Haryana Amendment Excise Act 2020. The FIR was initially registered against Puranmal for transporting 528 cartons of illegal wine in a trolla, concealed within a container declared to contain Carboxymethyal Cellulose. The petitioner had been granted interim bail on 08.05.2024, which was continuing. The petitioner stated he had joined the investigation and complied with the interim order, offering to comply with stringent conditions, including surrender of firearms and installation of GPS trackers on commercial vehicles. The State opposed the bail.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and made the interim order absolute. The Court reasoned that while the allegations were serious, the petitioner had joined the investigation and expressed willingness to comply with stringent conditions. The Court emphasized the need to protect victims and society, and to incapacitate the accused until the closure report, discharge, or acquittal. To achieve this, the Court imposed specific conditions. Firstly, the petitioner was directed to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and arms licenses to the concerned authority within fifteen days, and inform the investigator of compliance. This was to instill confidence in victims and society, and to restrain the accused from influencing witnesses or repeating the offence. Secondly, the petitioner was ordered to install GPS trackers on all his commercial vehicles and share the information with the investigator within 30 days. The Court noted that the restriction on firearms was based on the preponderance of probability, not certainty, and the petitioner would be entitled to renew and take back his firearms in case of acquittal, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, considering the allegations of transporting illegal liquor and using forged documents, and the potential for custodial interrogation to cause irreversible injustice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice. He expressed willingness to comply with stringent conditions, including surrendering firearms and installing GPS trackers on his commercial vehicles, and stated he had joined the investigation and complied with the interim bail order. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application.