Custodial interrogation is not necessary when the accused claims lawful possession of goods, balancing between severity of allegations and rights of the accused.

ORDER

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . 2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.244 of 2025 of Beypore Police Station, Kozhikode, registered alleging offences punishable under Section s 3 (2)(d) and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , Sections 2(f) and 3 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply & Distribution & Prevention of Malpractices ) Order, 1998, apart from Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 .

3. According to the prosecution, the accused was found to be in possession of 6,000 litres of diesel kept in a tanker lorry bearing registration No.KL-58-AE-5551 and thereafter another 18,000 litres of diesel was found stored in a godown belonging to the petitioner, and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the conduct of storage of diesel by the petitioner cannot be an offence, as he is entitled to keep in possession 45,000 litres under Section 7 (ii) of the Petroleum Act, 1934 . It was also submitted that the allegations are totally false, and therefore, petitioner ought to be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations are serious and custodial interrogation is necessary to identify the truth of the allegations.

7. The first accused, who is the driver of the tanker lorry was arrested on 30.03.2025, and he was subsequently released on bail. Petitioner has been roped in as an accused since he is a person who instructed the transport of diesel. As the petitioner do have a contention that he is authorised by law to transport the quantity seized, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

8. InSushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1] , it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274] , it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufÏcient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

10. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. However, petitioner must subject himself to interrogation under a limited custody.

11. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further, having regard to the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment,this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.

12. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating OfÏcer on 10.07.2025 from 10.00 am to 05.00. pm and, if required, on 11.07.2025 from 10.00 am to 05.00 pm and