Bhuj Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail For Businessman In Multi-State Coal Substitution Case
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
The District and Sessions Court in Bhuj has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Gandhidham-based businessman Ashwin Sharma in connection with an alleged multi-state coal substitution case registered at Mundra Police Station.
The applicant faces charges under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 317(2), 61(2) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
US Coal Allegedly Replaced With Lower-Grade Indonesian Coal
According to prosecution records, the accused allegedly substituted high-grade, high-value US coal with lower-grade Indonesian coal during port operations between January 2020 and June 2026.
The lower-quality coal was allegedly invoiced through his firm and sold outside Gujarat, including in Uttarakhand and Rajasthan.
Defence Seeks Anticipatory Bail
Defence counsel argued that Sharma was innocent, had cooperated with a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and that the case primarily relied on seized digital records.
The defence also pointed out that some co-accused had already been granted bail.
Prosecution Opposes Bail
Strongly opposing the plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Sharma was a partner in an international firm along with co-accused Jigarsinh Vaghela.
The State highlighted the ongoing investigation into high-volume financial transactions, including dealings involving the Gujarat Export Corporation, and submitted that key co-accused were yet to be arrested.
Court Says Custodial Interrogation Necessary
The court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary considering the alleged magnitude of the financial fraud.
Citing established legal precedents, the court noted that the parameters governing regular bail and anticipatory bail are distinct.
The court ultimately rejected Sharma’s anticipatory bail application, holding that the circumstances of the case did not warrant granting him discretionary pre-arrest protection.
