Samir Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Samir Agrawal, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 77/2024 registered at Police Station Sarangarh for offences under Sections 380, 457, and 411, 34 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged on 02.02.2024 concerning the theft of 24 units of old/used HBL 300 AH batteries, valued at approximately Rs. 25,000/-, which occurred between 03.01.2024 and 04.01.2024. The applicant's name surfaced based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, Kaushal Sahu, who has already been granted regular bail. The applicant also highlighted his father's permanent disability and ongoing medical treatment, for which the applicant is the sole caregiver, and his GST-registered scrap dealing business.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Samir Agrawal. The reasoning was based on several factors: the applicant's name was disclosed only through the memorandum statement of a co-accused who had already been granted regular bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court; the applicant claimed he had no knowledge that the goods he purchased were stolen, presenting it as a routine business transaction for his GST-registered scrap dealing business; and the applicant's father is permanently disabled, requiring the applicant's care. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with one 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 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of theft and receiving stolen property? The applicant argued that his case is similar to, or better than, that of a co-accused, Kaushal Sahu, who was granted regular bail. He contended that his involvement was disclosed solely through the co-accused's memorandum statement and that he was unaware the goods he purchased were stolen, as it was a routine business transaction for his GST-registered scrap dealing business, Shree Shyam Trading. Furthermore, he emphasized his role as the sole caregiver for his permanently disabled and dialysis-dependent father. The State, represented by the Deputy Government Advocate, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.