The Bombay High Court has refused anticipatory bail to two individuals implicated in an alleged scheme of handling adulterated petroleum products. The court observed that offences related to the illegal handling and adulteration of petroleum products have a direct bearing on public safety, the economy, and State revenue, and as such cannot be treated as mere private disputes. Justice Amit Borkar considered an application by Hetan Ram Gangwani and Yash Ram Gangwani, who were accused under Sections 287, 125, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with other special legislation provisions. The case stemmed from the seizure of eight tankers from a customs-bonded warehouse, in which diesel was allegedly adulterated.
The prosecution asserted that although the petroleum products were traded among three companies, all these entities were connected via a single email ID registered under the name of one of the accused, Yash Gangwani. The prosecution contended that the transactions between the firms were a façade, and that a single individual effectively controlled them all to mask the true nature of the dealings. The Court noted that at the stage of anticipatory bail, it was not appropriate to scrutinize the laboratory report or challenge the authority of the analyst; those issues are better left for the trial stage. What matters at this juncture is whether the material on record indicates a prima facie case and whether custodial interrogation may be necessary.
The Court found that the linkage of multiple companies under a single email account, viewed in concert with other circumstances, warranted a reasonable inference that the accused were attempting to divert imported petroleum products under the guise of legitimate trade, thereby concealing their true nature. The court observed that the accused attempted to lend legitimacy to their operations by routing the goods through several entities, but the lack of transparency and the suspicious pattern of paper transactions raised serious doubts about their intentions and the integrity of their dealings.
The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for cases where the accusations are manifestly false or motivated. Given the gravity of the allegations involving adulteration of petroleum products, which affect public health, revenue, and the integrity of infrastructure, the Court was persuaded that the applicants were not entitled to such protection. In view of the prima facie material, the seriousness of the charges, and the ongoing nature of the investigation, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.