2012 (12) TMI 1083 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 254/2012 involving Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Application
1. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 254/2012, involving Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC.
2. Allegations include illegal removal of goods worth over `10 crores from the custody of CONCOR using forged documents.
3. Investigation revealed involvement of the petitioner based on statements of co-accused and recovery of goods.
4. The petitioner's earlier bail application was rejected due to evasion and alleged forgeries in the case.
5. The petitioner filed a second bail application before the High Court.
6. The petitioner argued against custodial interrogation, citing recovered goods and specimen signatures comparison.
7. Petitioner claimed mala fide registration of FIR due to previous court order regarding interrogation presence.
8. State vehemently opposed bail, stating ongoing investigations and possibility of larger conspiracy.
9. Court considered liberal use of anticipatory bail but emphasized discretion based on judicial principles.
10. Court noted the gravity of the offense involving forged documents and complicity within Customs, requiring custodial interrogation.
11. Distinguished the present case from a previous case involving financial implications and highlighted the need for thorough investigation.
12. Considering the seriousness of the offense, the Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
13. Rejected the oral prayer for interrogation in the presence of counsel due to lack of specific prayer in the application.

This judgment highlights the importance of discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the gravity of the offense and the need for thorough investigation in cases involving significant financial implications and potential larger conspiracies.