Nagshetty Shivraj Sajjanshetty vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The Court noted a significant inconsistency between the applicant's current stand, where he disowned any connection to the seized rice, and his previous stance before the Collector in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was observed that the applicant and the truck driver had appeared jointly before the Collector, and at no point did the applicant disown his involvement. Furthermore, the presence of PDS stamps from multiple states on the rice bags indicated a 'deep-rooted racket' that could only be unearthed through custodial interrogation. The Court found custodial interrogation of the applicant to be highly imperative for the investigation's progress. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Nagshetty Shivraj Sajjanshetty, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 232/2020 registered at Osmanabad Rural Police Station for offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The case arose from the interception of a truck carrying rice bags, some bearing Public Distribution System (PDS) identification marks from four different states. The truck and its contents were seized. The applicant, operating M/s Ayyappa Trading Company, claimed no nexus with the transactions, presenting purchase vouchers and stating he was a businessman who would suffer disrepute if arrested without bail assurance. The prosecution contended that the PDS markings and the driver's disclosure implicating the applicant necessitated custodial interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of involvement in the illegal procurement and transportation of PDS rice bags? The applicant argued that he had no connection to the seized rice bags, presenting GST registration and purchase vouchers to support his claim of being a legitimate businessman. He asserted that his arrest would cause reputational damage and expressed readiness to cooperate with the investigation. The applicant relied on his business credentials and the absence of direct evidence linking him to the seized goods. The State (respondent) opposed the application, arguing that the presence of PDS markings on the bags and the co-accused's statement implicating the applicant were sufficient grounds for custodial interrogation. The State emphasized the need to uncover a potential deep-rooted racket and contended that the applicant's custodial interrogation was imperative to ascertain the source of the rice bags.