Stealing Petroleum-Based Fuels Has Adverse Impact On Country’s Economy: Bombay HC Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea In 13k Liters Petrol Theft Case
The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by an accused who allegedly stole 13,000 litres of petrol, after observing that stealing petroleum-based fuels has an adverse impact on a country’s economy.
The Court rejected the accused’s pre-arrest bail application after an FIR was registered against him under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 23(a) of the Petroleum Act, 1934; and Section 305(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. While regular bail is generally considered the norm, the Court clarified that the same principle does not apply to anticipatory bail.
A Single Bench of Justice R.N. Laddha observed, “The material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant actively participated in and benefited from the crime. 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 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.”
Advocate Sandeep R Waghmare appeared for the Applicant, while APP Amit A Palkar represented the Respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with co-accused, orchestrated the theft of petrol worth Rs. 13,39,000/- by tapping a pipeline belonging to Indian Oil Tanking Limited. According to the prosecution, the accused and his associates rented a tanker, used a motor pump to siphon petrol from the pipeline, and then sold the stolen fuel at concessional rates to buyers, including the owner of the tanker.
Although the accused was not present at the scene, the prosecution claimed he monitored the operation from a distance. The accused and his father, both absconding, were alleged to be the masterminds behind the crime.
Despite the accused’s absence from the scene, the High Court noted that he monitored the theft from a distance. “The material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant actively participated in and benefited from the crime,” it remarked.
The Bench reiterated that granting anticipatory bail was an extraordinary power. “Considering each case's specific circumstances, the Court must exercise careful and prudent discretion when deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail. 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 by allowing tampering with evidence,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “ In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. As a result, the application stands rejected.”
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the pre-arrest bail Application.
Cause Title: Mohd. Ahmed Shafique Khan v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:44239)
