Sanat Kumar Gupta vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Sanat Kumar Gupta, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 333/2025 registered at Police Station Akaltara for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleges that a rice mill owner's truck, loaded with 35.100 tonnes of rice worth Rs. 11,52,190/-, disappeared while en route to Vapi, Gujarat. The driver and vehicle owner were unreachable. Investigations revealed the truck was likely stolen from Akaltara, with a false number plate used. During the investigation, notices were served to the applicant's brother and father. The applicant claims he is a legitimate grain merchant, operating a business for 25-30 years, duly registered under GST, and purchased the grains in question from a regular customer through bank transactions, possessing proper receipts.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, the submissions of both parties, and the material on record. It noted the allegation against the applicant, a grain merchant, was that he purchased stolen rice. Crucially, the Court observed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the investigation and trial are likely to take some time. Based on these considerations, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing a local surety, subject to several conditions including not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, appearing before the trial court, submitting identity documents, and not involving himself in similar offences in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of purchasing stolen rice and the potential for absconding or tampering with evidence? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends he has been falsely implicated, has no knowledge that the purchased grains were stolen, and operates a legitimate, long-established business registered under GST. He asserts bona fide purchase through bank transactions with proper receipts, is a permanent resident, and poses no flight risk or risk of tampering. He seeks anticipatory bail. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, noting that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.