Saket Court of Delhi has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in the case of alleged hoarding and illegal sale of LPG cylinders. The court says that to find out the entire network in the case, it is necessary to interrogate the accused in custody.
Accused Mukesh Kumar had filed a petition for anticipatory bail. He is accused of hoarding LPG cylinders and selling them in the black market. The police have registered a case against him under the Essential Commodities Act. Apart from this, he has also been accused of criminal conspiracy under the sections of BNSS.
What argument did the defense side give?
Table of Contents
During the hearing, the accused’s lawyer told the court that the punishment under the Essential Commodities Act is not very serious and it is a bailable offence. The lawyer also argued that the accused is ready to cooperate in the investigation. The defense, citing some High Court decisions, said that some items have already been recovered in the case and a co-accused in the case has also been granted bail. Therefore, on the basis of equality, Mukesh Kumar should also get relief.
Why did Saket court reject the bail?
However, the court was not satisfied with these arguments. Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar Gautam said that the decisions of the High Court are not binding in this case, they can only be seen as references. The court said that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and it cannot be granted in every case, especially when the case is related to organized economic crime and conspiracy.
The judge also said that in such cases the police often have to interrogate the accused in custody. So that the entire network and chain of illegal activities can be understood. This process may be affected if anticipatory bail is granted.
Allegations of black marketing amid LPG supply crisis
The court also acknowledged that the accused is accused of illegal buying and selling of LPG cylinders at a time when there is concern about supply and demand is also high due to the ongoing crisis in West Asia. The court said that in such times, hoarding and black marketing of essential commodities causes direct loss to the common people and the distribution system is also affected.
Role described as different from co-accused
Saket court also rejected the plea of granting relief to the co-accused on the basis of bail granted to him. The court said that the role of Mukesh Kumar appears different. According to the investigation, the owner of the vehicle which was used in this case is said to be Mukesh Kumar and he is considered to be an important part of this entire network.
The accused did not join the investigation
The court also said that the accused had not participated in the investigation before the hearing. This strengthened the police’s argument that it was necessary to interrogate him in custody. In view of all these facts, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. However, the court made it clear that all these comments are limited only to giving decision on the bail petition and it will not affect the final outcome of the case.
