2015 (12) TMI 1700 - HC - Customs

Cancellation of Bail application - illegal storage and then export of red sanders a prohibited item - case of respondent is that the accused respondents have correctly been granted bail and bail once granted is not liable to be cancelled - Held that - the court below is found to have released the accused respondents on bail relying on the judgment rendered in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT which was a case relating to telecommunication laws and telecom service license and spectrum obtained fraudulently whereas in the present case the offence committed by the accused respondents is an offence of social economic offence of international ramifications which is very serious offence considering the fact that Red Sanders (Red Sandalwood) is included in the endangered list of plants in CITES an international agreement signed by 180 countries and the accused respondents are habitual offenders and the possibility of re-occurrence of offence of similar nature cannot be ruled out particularly when red sandalwood has a lucrative market for smugglers and as per the details given by co-accused person the Red Sanders of the value of 4-5 crores has been smuggled out of the India the Court below is found to have committed error while granting bail to the accused respondents. The cancellation of bail applications filed by the petitioner are allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail applications under Section 439(2) CrPC.
2. Involvement in illegal storage and export of red sanders.
3. Seizure of red sanders and marble slabs.
4. Previous bail applications and their dismissal.
5. Argument for cancellation of bail.
6. Argument against cancellation of bail.
7. Legal precedents and considerations for bail cancellation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Bail Applications under Section 439(2) CrPC:
The applications for cancellation of bail were filed under Section 439(2) CrPC by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The court examined the circumstances under which the bail was granted to the accused respondents and considered whether the bail should be cancelled.

2. Involvement in Illegal Storage and Export of Red Sanders:
The petitioner DRI received intelligence about a syndicate led by Mr. Anil Gadodia involved in the illegal storage and export of red sanders, a prohibited item under CITES. The intelligence indicated that red sanders were procured from South India and stored in various godowns in Delhi before being exported to China via Hong Kong. Investigations revealed that the export was facilitated by the accused respondent Rameshwar Sharma of M/s. Eurro Exports, Jaipur, who concealed red sanders in marble export consignments.

3. Seizure of Red Sanders and Marble Slabs:
A joint operation led to the seizure of 14.25 MT of red sanders concealed behind marble slabs in containers at Mundra Container Freight Station. The goods were seized under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further searches at various premises led to the recovery of additional red sanders, cash, and incriminating documents, which were seized under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Previous Bail Applications and Their Dismissal:
The accused respondents were arrested and their initial bail applications were dismissed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequent bail applications filed in the High Court were also dismissed, with the court noting the serious nature of the offences and the likelihood of the accused committing similar offences if released on bail.

5. Argument for Cancellation of Bail:
The petitioner argued that the accused were habitual offenders involved in smuggling red sanders and that their release on bail would hinder the investigation and lead to the re-occurrence of similar offences. The petitioner emphasized that the offences had international ramifications and involved significant economic and environmental impact. The petitioner also highlighted that the bail was granted by the lower court without considering the High Court's previous dismissal of bail applications.

6. Argument Against Cancellation of Bail:
The respondents' counsel contended that the bail was correctly granted and that no compelling reasons existed for its cancellation. They argued that the seriousness of the offence alone was not sufficient grounds for bail cancellation and that the petitioner had not demonstrated any illegal or improper conduct by the respondents while on bail. They relied on various legal precedents to support their argument that bail once granted should not be easily cancelled.

7. Legal Precedents and Considerations for Bail Cancellation:
The court referred to several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, which emphasized that bail should not be cancelled unless there are cogent and overwhelming circumstances. Factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding were considered. The court noted that the accused were involved in a serious economic offence with international implications and that their release could lead to further illegal activities.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the cancellation of bail applications, setting aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge that granted bail to the accused respondents. The accused were directed to surrender before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur, within a week. If they failed to do so, the court instructed the lower court to take necessary action for their arrest. The decision emphasized the seriousness of the offences and the need to prevent the re-occurrence of similar illegal activities.

← Previous Next →