1. Accused charged with supplying underweight gas bottles under IPC Sections 406, 409, 420, 462, 285, 120(B) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Manojbhai Ramsingbhai Gamit – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15159 of 2024]
Decided On : 02-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Sneha Menon, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Sneha Menon, Adv.
Custodial interrogation is not necessary if the accused cooperates with the investigation and other co-accused have been granted bail.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 462, 285 and 120
(B) - Essential Commodities Act, 2020 - Sections 3 and 7 - Bail application rejected by High Court - Appellant accused of supplying gas bottles with less quantity - Majority of co-accused released on bail - Custodial interrogation deemed unnecessary. (Paras 3, 6, 7, 11)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - Appellant directed to join investigation and not to influence witnesses - Non-compliance may lead to cancellation of bail. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant is accused in FIR for supplying gas bottles with insufficient gas quantity, with charges under IPC and Essential Commodities Act. Majority of co-accused released on bail.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order rejecting bail was set aside, allowing bail with conditions.
Issues: The main issues were whether custodial interrogation was necessary and the appropriateness of bail conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that custodial interrogation was not necessary given the nature of allegations and the appellant's cooperation in the investigation.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged the High Court's rejection of a prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Custodial interrogation is unnecessary given the nature of allegations, the release of co-accused on bail, and the appellant's cooperation in the investigation. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Anticipatory bail may be granted where custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary based on the nature of allegations and the conduct of the accused. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; appellant granted bail upon arrest subject to trial court conditions. (Para 7 , 11 )
6. When is custodial interrogation considered unnecessary for the purpose of granting bail?
Custodial interrogation may be deemed unnecessary when the court considers the nature of the allegations, the fact that co-accused have been released on bail, and the accused's prior cooperation in the investigation. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Does the grant of bail imply a finding on the merits of the criminal case?
No, observations made by the court during the grant of bail are not to be treated as findings on the merits of the case. (Para 10 )
8. What are the consequences of breaching the conditions imposed while on bail?
If the accused breaches any of the terms and conditions imposed by the court, the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail. (Para 9 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned order dated 25th April, 2024, the High Court has rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest.
3. The appellant is an accused in FIR No. C.R. 11214042231585 dated 22nd December, 2023 registered with Police Station Olpad, Surat. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant along with others, by supplying gas bottles having quantity of gas less than what each bottle should have contained, has committed offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 406, 409, 420, 462, 285 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent-State.
5. Apart from the appellant, there are 12 (twelve) co-accused. Of them, majority has been released on bail while a lady-accused has been released on pre-arrest bail. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has joined the investigation in terms of a previous order of this Court.
6. Having regard to the nature of allegations as well as the factors noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not necessary
7. The impugned order stands set aside. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested in connection with proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
8. Needless to observe, the appellant shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating officer and also co-operate in the ensuing trial. He shall not, directly or indirectly, by inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to any police officer or to the court.
9. It is made clear that in the event the appellant breaches any of the terms and conditions imposed by it, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
10. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed.
