Delhi Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In LPG Cylinders Black Marketing Case, Cites Rising Prices And Increased Public Dependence

A Delhi Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused in a case involving alleged illegal procurement and black marketing of LPG cylinders, observing that the offence assume greater seriousness in times of rising prices and increased public dependence.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar Gautam of Saket Courts dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by accused Mukesh Kumar in an FIR registered for the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

As per the prosecution, the case involved illegal procurement, transportation and black marketing of LPG cylinders, allegedly impacting public distribution and safety.

The State argued that Kumar was the main conspirator and owner of the vehicle used in the offence, and had evaded investigation.

It was further submitted that the investigation was at a crucial stage, with Call Detail Records (CDRs) and other electronic evidence yet to be analysed, and that custodial interrogation was necessary to identify the source of procurement and other co-conspirators.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is bailable, the recovery had already been effected, and that Kumar has d no prior criminal antecedents. It was also contended that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail.

Dismissing the plea, the Court observed that Kumar's role was distinct and more serious, as he was stated to be the owner of the vehicle used in the offence and part of the alleged conspiracy.

“This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that offences relating to black marketing of essential commodities, particularly LPG cylinders, assume greater seriousness in times of rising prices and increased public dependence, thereby affecting the larger public at large. Economic offences of this nature, committed in times of rising prices of essential commodities, strike at the very root of public welfare,” the Court said.

It added that the ground of parity with co-accused was also not applicable in the case, as the role and conduct of Kumar was materially different.

The judge also noted that Kumar's conduct in not joining investigation and evading the same weighed against him.

“The investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation appears necessary to unearth the complete chain of procurement, transportation and illegal distribution, as well as to analyse electronic evidence including CDR,” the Court said.

It concluded that failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, while adding that the observations were predicated solely on the facts as alleged, are not findings on merits, and would have no bearing on merits.