Bengaluru, August 30, 2023 – In a swift decision rendered just eleven days after presentation, the LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Sri S. Nataraj, granted anticipatory bail to Asha @ Ashakalappa, an accused in a case involving the illegal storage and refilling of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders. The court ruled that custodial interrogation was likely unnecessary and that the offences, while serious, were not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The order, issued in Crl.Misc.No. 8082/2023, pertains to Cr.No.253/2023 registered by the Yelahanka New Town Police Station for violations of the Essential Commodities Act (Sections 7 and 3), the Liquid Petroleum Gas Regulation of Supply and Distribution Order, 2000 (Sections 3(1)(b) and 4), and the Indian Penal Code (Section 285 read with 34).

Allegations and Case Registration

The legal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Sandeep V., Yelahanka Taluk, on August 10, 2023.

The complaint alleged that information was received regarding the illegal storage and sale of commercial gas cylinders from various companies for refilling purposes at a godown belonging to Smt. Yashodamma, situated at Veerasagara Village, near the Swimming Pool.

Upon conducting a raid on August 10, 2023, the raiding party allegedly seized a substantial quantity of LPG cylinders and related equipment, including:

• 72 commercial cylinders of Bharath Gas.
• 21 commercial cylinders of Indian Gas.
• 3 commercial cylinders of HP Gas.
• 62 Total Energy Gas cylinders.

A total of 162 cylinders were seized under a mahazar, along with a gas refilling rod, gas refilling machines, and electronic weighing machines. The godown premises were subsequently sealed.

The petitioner, Asha @ Ashakalappa, was named as Accused No. 1 and sought protection from arrest by filing an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Through her counsel, Sri K. Umesh Gowda, the petitioner argued her innocence, claiming false implication and asserting that she had not committed the alleged offences. Key grounds raised for the grant of bail included:

• The petitioner is a permanent resident of the address shown, assuring her availability for trial.
• The procedure adopted for conducting the raid was challenged, with the claim that no notice was served upon the owner of the premises prior to the action.
• The petitioner expressed willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
• The petitioner highlighted the inadmissibility of a voluntary statement as evidence.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Learned Public Prosecutor filed objections along with the Investigating Officer’s report, vehemently opposing the bail application. The prosecution’s main counter-arguments were:

• The petitioner and others illegally sold cylinders from different companies without a proper license or permit for the purpose of refilling.
• The massive seizure of 162 cylinders provided a prima facie case against the accused.
• The investigation was pending, and granting bail could lead to the petitioner destroying evidence or committing similar offences in the future.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the court focused on two pivotal aspects: the requirement for custodial interrogation and the nature of the offences.

1. Custodial Interrogation Not Required:

The court observed that the core evidence—the 162 cylinders, refilling machines, and weighing machines—had already been seized under the mahazar. The judge concluded: “The custodial interrogation of petitioner may not be required.”

2. Nature of the Offences and Legal Guidelines:

The judge noted that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate.

Furthermore, the court took into account the petitioner’s status as a woman and her confirmed status as a permanent resident of the address provided in the cause title, which substantially minimized the chances of her absconding from the trial.

The court also considered the recent guidelines established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825), which emphasizes a pragmatic approach to bail, especially for offences not carrying capital punishment.

Based on the cumulative assessment of the facts, the nature and gravity of the accusation, and the lack of necessity for pre-trial incarceration, the court answered the question of whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in the affirmative.

Terms of Bail

The court proceeded to grant the anticipatory bail, directing that the petitioner be released in the event of her arrest upon execution of a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for the purpose of investigation.
2. The petitioner shall not threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses in any manner, directly or indirectly.
3. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the concerned Court as and when called for.
4. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

The court explicitly stated that the prosecution reserves the liberty to move for the cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated. The order was pronounced in open court on August 30, 2023.