"Stealing Petroleum-Based Fuels Has An Adverse Impact On The Economy" - Bombay HC Denies Anticipatory Bail In Fuel Theft Case

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to an accused in a petrol theft case impacting the economy. Charged under various acts, the accused allegedly orchestrated the theft of 13,000 litres of petrol, monitored by him remotely. The Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to investigate the crime network, citing significant risks in granting bail.

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of an accused allegedly involved in the theft of 13,000 litres of petrol, citing the broader economic repercussions of such crimes. The accused was charged under multiple provisions, including the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Petroleum Act, 1934, and Section 305(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Justice R.N. Laddha observed,

“Stealing petroleum-based fuels has an adverse impact on a country’s economy, contributing to rising fuel prices, a reduction in revenue from taxes, and illegal trade.”

The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief that must be granted with utmost caution, particularly in cases of serious offenses.

Allegations and Modus Operandi

The prosecution alleged that the accused orchestrated the theft of petrol worth Rs 13,39,000 by tapping a pipeline owned by Indian Oil Tanking Limited. The accused and his associates rented a tanker, installed a motor pump to siphon petrol from the pipeline, and sold the stolen fuel at concessional rates.

Although the accused was not physically present at the theft site, the prosecution maintained that he monitored the operation remotely. The accused and his father, both absconding, were described as the masterminds behind the operation.

Court’s Observations

Rejecting the bail plea, the Court noted,

“The material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant actively participated in and benefited from the crime. The applicant seems to be the linchpin of the offence, and his custody would be necessary to uncover the illicit network of the unlawful fuel trade.”

The Court reiterated that granting anticipatory bail must be exercised prudently, especially in cases where granting relief might hinder investigations or lead to tampering with evidence. Justice Laddha stated,

“There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Caution is necessary, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially hinder investigation or lead to miscarriage of justice.”

Decision

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the Court refused to extend anticipatory bail to the accused, remarking that his custodial interrogation was essential to dismantle the larger illegal trade network. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Case Details