Dinesh Kumar vs. The State Of Tamilnadu

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 02 of 2023 registered by the CBCID, Madurai City, for alleged offences under the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in the illegal import and sale of firearms, reassembling imported gun parts. The petitioner's father, a licensed arms dealer, was also implicated. The petitioner contended that his name was not in the original FIR and he was falsely implicated based on a co-accused's confession. He highlighted that his father had been granted bail, and other co-accused had also been released on bail. The petitioner had previously appeared for interrogation twice as directed by the Court, and no substantial material was found against him. The petitioner also submitted that he holds a BE degree, is a licensed shooter, and maintains proper accounts for his business.

Held

The Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary, as he had appeared before the respondent police twice for interrogation as directed by the Court, and this fact was not disputed. The Court noted that the petitioner's father, who was implicated on similar grounds, had been granted bail. The petitioner's name was not in the original FIR, and he was allegedly implicated based on a co-accused's confession. The Court also observed that the co-accused and the petitioner's father had been granted bail, and the petitioner had appeared for interrogation twice after an earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed, indicating changed circumstances. The petitioner assured that he would not abscond or tamper with evidence. Therefore, considering these facts and circumstances, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considering the allegations of involvement in illegal firearms trade and the pending investigation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, his name was not in the initial FIR, and he had cooperated with the investigation by appearing for interrogation twice. He relied on Supreme Court guidelines in Sushila Agarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. ... v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that he would not abscond or tamper with evidence. He also pointed out that all co-accused, including his father, had been granted bail, and custodial interrogation was not necessary. Respondent's arguments: The respondent police objected to the anticipatory bail, arguing that the petitioner was involved in purchasing dismantled gun parts and reassembling them into firearms, which was not permissible under his license. They contended that the petitioner's father's confession statement implicated the petitioner, and if granted bail, the petitioner would tamper with evidence. The investigation was stated to be pending, and the petitioner denied knowledge of remaining firearms.