Samir Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Samir Agrawal, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 37/2024 registered at Police Station Sarangarh for offences under Sections 380, 457, 411, and 34 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged on 15.01.2024, alleging the theft of 24 units of 600 hertz batteries, valued at approximately Rs. 48,000/-, from a room in Village Damdarha on the night of 15.01.2024. The applicant's name surfaced from the memorandum statement of a co-accused, Kaushal Sahu, who had 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 own GST-registered scrap business, stating he was unaware the purchased goods were stolen.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. It considered the facts and circumstances, including that the applicant's name was disclosed solely based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused who had already been granted regular bail. The Court also took into account the applicant's submission that he had no knowledge that the goods he purchased were stolen. Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant's responsibility as the sole caregiver for his permanently disabled father, who is undergoing dialysis. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, 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, and the facts presented by the applicant? The applicant argued that his case is better than that of the co-accused, Kaushal Sahu, who was granted regular bail. He emphasized his role as the sole caregiver for his permanently disabled father undergoing dialysis and his lack of knowledge that the goods he purchased for his scrap business (Shree Shyam Trading, GST registered) were stolen. The applicant relied on the co-accused's bail order. The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.