Anil Kumar Shrivastava vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Anil Kumar Shrivastava, who apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 32/2025. The FIR was registered under Sections (3)(7) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Section 287 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that on February 2, 2025, a tanker vehicle was found abandoned with diesel-like oil. During investigation, the driver stated the fuel was for Super Hightech Company. The company allegedly ordered a large quantity of fuel from Gujarat for use without informing competent authorities and without proper storage facilities. The applicant, a supervisor at Super Hitech Engineering & Construction Company, claims innocence, stating he was retired from SECL and had no role in fuel transportation. He asserts the company legally purchased distilled fuel oil, paid GST, and that the seized material is for industrial use, not diesel, making the Essential Commodities Act inapplicable. The FIR was registered 18 days after the incident.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The primary reasoning for granting bail was the delay of 18 days in lodging the FIR, for which no explanation was provided. Additionally, the Court noted that the purchaser company had already paid GST amounting to Rs. 4,40,708.58, indicating no loss of revenue. The Court also considered the applicant's age (64 years) and his position as a supervisor in the company. While not expressing a final opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found these factors sufficient to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond with a surety, and several conditions were imposed, including not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, appearing before the trial court, submitting identity documents, and not involving himself in similar offenses in the future. The issue of whether the seized material constituted 'diesel' or 'distilled fuel oil' and the applicability of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, were not definitively decided but factored into the bail decision.

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 illegal procurement and storage of combustible fuel under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He contended that he was a supervisor at Super Hitech Engineering & Construction Company and had no role in the transportation of fuel. He further submitted that the company legally purchased 36,543 liters of distilled fuel oil from VDC OIL Limited on January 20, 2025, paying Rs. 28,91,979/- including GST of Rs. 4,40,708.58. The applicant claimed the seized material is distilled fuel oil, useful only for industrial use and not diesel, thus the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is not attracted. He also pointed out that the Chhattisgarh Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (License and Control) Order, 1980, was repealed. The FIR was registered after 18 days without explanation, and the applicant, being 64 years old and suffering from ailments, is entitled to anticipatory bail based on Apex Court judgments like Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the bail, arguing that the company illegally ordered and procured combustible fuel in commercial quantities without adequate storage. They stated that lab tests revealed the seized material was not diesel, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.