Digital Footprints and Layered Transactions as Prima Facie Indicators of Control: Bombay High Court narrows anticipatory bail in alleged fuel adulteration cases under BNSS §482

Introduction

This commentary examines the Bombay High Court’s decision in Hetan Ram Gangwani and Anr v. The State of Maharashtra (Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2253 of 2025), decided on 30 September 2025 by Justice Amit Borkar. The applicants, two brothers and company directors, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Crime No. 346 of 2024 registered at Uran Police Station, District Raigad.

The case arises out of a police visit to a customs bonded warehouse on 12 July 2024, where eight tankers were found, two of which allegedly contained adulterated diesel. The prosecution links the import and subsequent “high seas sale” of “Process Oil-40” through three companies—Sole Bloom Pvt. Ltd., Siddhidhata Trading Company, and Naksh Trading Company—asserting these were layered paper transactions designed to camouflage diversion of petroleum products. A critical factual strand advanced by the State is that all three companies’ bank accounts were linked to a single email ID belonging to Applicant No. 2, allegedly indicating unified control over the financial flows.

The applicants challenged the very foundation of the FIR and investigation: they argued the Assistant Police Inspector (API) lacked authority under petroleum-related control orders and the Essential Commodities Act (ECA); that the initial detention of goods was not a lawful “seizure”; that the laboratory report relied upon was non-compliant (not NABL-accredited and incomplete under IS 1460:2017 diesel standards); and that “Process Oil” is not a notified essential commodity. They relied on selected precedents to argue that procedural illegalities vitiated the prosecution.

The Court refused anticipatory bail, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged economic offence, the prima facie inference of control from a common digital footprint (email), the preliminary laboratory finding indicating adulteration, and the need for custodial interrogation to probe the money trail and larger conspiracy.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court denied anticipatory bail under BNSS §482 to both applicants, finding prima facie material supporting allegations of fuel adulteration and layered transactions.
It held that a common email ID linked to multiple companies’ bank accounts is a significant circumstantial indicator that a single individual controlled the financial transactions across ostensibly separate entities.
The contention that the API lacked authority, that seizure was invalid, or that the lab report was non-compliant (NABL accreditation and IS 1460:2017 parameters) are issues that go to the root of the case and must be tested at trial; they are not dispositive at the anticipatory bail stage.
Preliminary laboratory findings indicating “adulterated diesel” are sufficient prima facie material at the bail stage, even if the defence disputes their admissibility or completeness.
Given the seriousness of economic offences involving essential commodities and petroleum, the Court underscored the public interest in allowing custodial interrogation to trace the chain of supply, identify co-conspirators, and protect public safety and the State exchequer.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited

The applicants relied on:

Abhay s/o Anup Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (4) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 218 – cited to support arguments that actions under petroleum control orders and the ECA require proper authorization and procedure; that non-compliance with mandated testing protocols undermines the prosecution.
Avtar Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine 319 – cited for the proposition that prosecutions cannot proceed where searches, seizures, or investigations are vitiated by lack of authority or foundational procedural defects.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2013 – invoked to reinforce procedural safeguards concerning authorized officers and compliant testing regimes in petroleum/adulteration cases.

The Bombay High Court did not undertake a detailed exposition or application of these authorities at the anticipatory bail stage. Instead, it functionally distinguished them by deferring their consideration to trial, reiterating the well-settled rule that anticipatory bail is not the forum for adjudicating the legality of search and seizure, the competence of the informant, or technical admissibility of reports. In doing so, the Court aligned with the mainstream approach that procedural irregularities and evidentiary objections are merits-stage inquiries ill-suited to a pre-arrest bail determination.

Legal Reasoning

1) Anticipatory bail threshold under BNSS §482 mirrors the §438 CrPC jurisprudence

Although the new procedural code (BNSS) renumbers sections, the Court expressly applied the established principles of anticipatory bail from CrPC §438 jurisprudence: no “mini-trial” at the bail stage; focus on prima facie case, gravity of allegations, potential for custodial interrogation, and societal impact.

2) Common digital footprints as circumstantial evidence of unified control

A striking feature is the Court’s treatment of a single email ID linked to three companies’ bank accounts (Sole Bloom Pvt. Ltd., Siddhidhata Trading Company, and Naksh Trading Company). The Court reasoned:

Separate legal entities ordinarily maintain independent banking coordinates and notification channels.
A personal email (belonging to Applicant No. 2) registered across all accounts meant debit/credit alerts reached the same person, enabling centralized monitoring and direction of transactions.
The explanation that the common linkage existed because of a shared Chartered Accountant was rejected as implausible since CAs do not typically control real-time banking alerts or account notifications.

On this basis, the Court drew a prima facie inference that what appeared as inter se sales were orchestrated, layered transactions under a single control nexus—a “camouflage,” with Accused No. 3 as a front.

3) Lifting the corporate veil at the bail stage (prima facie)

The Court explicitly invoked the principle of “lifting the corporate veil” to look past separate corporate personalities where companies are allegedly used as instruments of fraud. Importantly, this was not a final determination but a prima facie evaluative tool at the bail stage. The Court held that the inter-relationship of accused persons, their coordinated roles as directors, and the shared digital/banking footprint warranted treating the entities as controlled by the two applicants.

4) Laboratory report as prima facie material, notwithstanding technical objections

While the defence argued that:

the initial customs laboratory report was not from an NABL-accredited lab,
it did not conduct all 21 mandatory IS 1460:2017 tests for automotive diesel, and
a subsequent Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories (DFSL) report described the substance as “petroleum hydrocarbon,”

the Court treated these as matters for trial. At the anticipatory bail stage, the presence of a laboratory report indicating adulteration is relevant prima facie material; its admissibility, probative value, and compliance with testing protocols are to be assessed through cross-examination and expert testimony at trial.

5) Public interest and the “seriousness” of economic offences involving essential commodities/petroleum

The Court delivered a detailed public interest rationale:

Adulterated fuel compromises safety (risk of fire/explosion), damages machinery/vehicles, and undermines trust in regulatory systems.
Such conduct harms the State’s fiscal interests (duty/tax losses) and the economy.
Legislations like the ECA, Petroleum Act, and Inflammable Substances Act are designed to protect the public interest; violations merit a serious response.

Against that backdrop, the Court found that custodial interrogation may be necessary to uncover the full supply chain, money trail, and beneficiaries—objectives that could be frustrated if pre-arrest protection were granted.

6) FIR and investigation by appropriate rank; “mini-trial” caution

The Court noted that the FIR was lodged by an API under instruction from the Senior Police Inspector and that a Police Inspector was conducting the investigation. Controversies about authorization under control orders, legality of detention or seizure, and the competence of the informant were deferred to trial. Reiterating the “no mini-trial” principle, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, not to be used to short-circuit regular evidentiary adjudication.

Impact

This ruling is likely to influence both investigative practice and defence strategy in economic offences, especially those involving essential commodities and petroleum products:

Elevated weight to digital footprints: Common digital identifiers (email IDs, possibly phone numbers/alerts) associated with multiple entities’ financial accounts may be treated as strong circumstantial indicators of unified control at the bail stage. This raises the compliance bar for corporate governance and account segregation where independent operation is claimed.
Laboratory reports as sufficient prima facie material: Even if accused dispute NABL accreditation or compliance with IS standards, preliminary lab indications of adulteration can justify denial of anticipatory bail. The full debate on testing methodology is deferred to trial.
Veil-piercing at an interlocutory stage (prima facie): The Court’s willingness to look beyond the corporate form to the controlling individuals when faced with layered transactions and a unifying digital footprint is a noteworthy development in bail jurisprudence for economic offences.
BNSS continuity with CrPC principles: The decision affirms continuity of anticipatory bail principles under BNSS §482 with the well-settled §438 CrPC jurisprudence—no mini-trial, focus on gravity and custodial interrogation needs, and greater restraint in serious economic offences.
Strategic recalibration for defence: Technical objections (authorization, seizure protocol, lab accreditation, adequacy of tests) are unlikely to secure pre-arrest bail in the face of prima facie material. Such objections must be meticulously prepared for trial, including independent expert evidence and rigorous cross-examination.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anticipatory bail (BNSS §482): Pre-arrest bail that protects an individual from arrest for a non-bailable offence. Courts grant it sparingly, considering prima facie case, gravity, risk of tampering, and need for custodial interrogation. BNSS renumbers provisions but retains the core §438 CrPC principles.
High seas sale: A sale of goods while they are still in transit (before landing), often used in import chains. Here, the imported Process Oil-40 allegedly changed hands among multiple entities before delivery.
Customs bonded warehouse: A secure facility where imported goods can be stored without immediate payment of duties, under customs supervision, subject to strict handling and movement protocols.
Essential Commodities Act (ECA): Authorizes the Government to regulate production, supply, and distribution of certain “essential” commodities. Violations (e.g., adulteration, diversion) can entail stringent penalties.
Petroleum Act and Inflammable Substances Act: Regulate storage, transport, and handling of petroleum and hazardous substances, emphasizing safety and licensing norms.
IS 1460:2017 (Automotive Diesel Fuel): An Indian Standard specifying a suite of tests/parameters for diesel. Defence often challenges prosecutions by arguing that incomplete or non-compliant testing undermines the allegation of adulteration.
NABL accreditation: Certification of laboratories for technical competence. Defence arguments frequently assert that only NABL-accredited labs’ reports should be relied upon; courts often leave such admissibility issues to trial.
Lifting the corporate veil: A doctrine permitting courts to look past a company’s separate legal personality to the persons controlling it, particularly where the corporate form is used for fraud or evasion. At the bail stage, this operates as a prima facie inference rather than a conclusive finding.
Mini-trial caution: At the anticipatory bail stage, courts avoid adjudicating disputed questions of fact and evidence (e.g., legality of search, authority to seize, admissibility or completeness of lab reports). Those are reserved for trial.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision articulates a robust approach to anticipatory bail in economic offences involving petroleum products and essential commodities. Three elements stand out:

Digital footprints as control evidence: A single email ID linked to multiple companies’ bank accounts enabled the Court to draw a prima facie inference of unified control and orchestrated layering—seriously undermining the defence narrative of independent entities and legitimate sales.
Deferral of procedural and evidentiary objections to trial: Challenges to officer authorization, seizure legality, NABL accreditation, and completeness of IS 1460 testing are quintessential trial issues. Preliminary laboratory indications of adulteration suffice to cross the low prima facie threshold at the bail stage.
Public interest and custodial interrogation: Given the systemic risks posed by fuel adulteration—safety hazards, economic harm, and erosion of regulatory trust—the Court declined pre-arrest protection to allow full, unhindered investigation, including custodial interrogation to map the conspiracy and money trail.

In sum, the ruling tightens the anticipatory bail window in cases alleging fuel adulteration and diversion, clarifies that BNSS §482 follows the established §438 CrPC jurisprudence, and signals that modern digital markers of financial control will be taken seriously at the interlocutory stage. While the applicants retain the right to challenge authorization, seizure, and testing protocols at trial, such disputes will not ordinarily secure pre-arrest bail where prima facie material and public interest considerations point the other way.