2019 (3) TMI 2054 - HC - Customs

Application for Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - inquiry initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the facts of the case nature of allegations gravity of offences role attributed to the accused without discussing the evidence in detail at this stage I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also considered the aspects that; (i) the applicant was called for interrogation pursuant to the summons issued by the respondent department and the applicant had cooperated with the investigation and his statement was recorded twice on 20.7.2018 and 16.8.2018; (ii) another importer is protected by Division Bench of this Court by passing interim order; (iii) another importer viz.Deepak Agarwal is released on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 7.12.2018. In the said order this Court has observed that the offence under the Customs Act is compoundable and the maximum sentence is of seven years; (iv) so far as the said accused is concerned it is also observed that during the course of investigation remand of the said applicantaccused was not sought and entire investigation is based on documents; (v) entire quantity of alleged high-speed diesel as per the report is lying in the custody of the respondent department therefore I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. In the result the present application is allowed - At the trial the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with an inquiry by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

Analysis:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to an inquiry by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The applicant's counsel argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage, and the applicant would cooperate with the investigation and trial proceedings. The counsel assured that the applicant would abide by all conditions imposed, including those related to the Investigating Agency's powers to seek remand. The counsel emphasized the applicant's willingness to oppose any remand application by the Investigating Agency on merit. The applicant's cooperation and readiness to comply with conditions were highlighted as grounds for granting anticipatory bail.

The Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent opposed the grant of anticipatory bail based on the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence. After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the material on record, the Court considered various factors before deciding on the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation, his statement was recorded, and other similar cases had been treated with leniency. The Court also highlighted that the alleged goods were already in the custody of the respondent department. Considering these aspects, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

The Court referenced the law laid down by the Honorable Apex Court in previous cases, particularly citing the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., to support its decision to grant anticipatory bail. The Court issued specific conditions for the applicant's release on bail, including cooperation with the investigation, appearance at the Police Station on specified dates, refraining from influencing witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission. The Court also allowed the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if deemed necessary, with the Magistrate deciding on the merit of such application.

Additionally, the Court clarified that despite the grant of anticipatory bail, the Investigating Agency could still apply for police remand, and the applicant must comply with the Magistrate's directions. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made in the present order during the trial proceedings. The Rule was made absolute to the specified extent, permitting direct service of the order.

In conclusion, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence inquiry, subject to specific conditions and legal provisions, emphasizing cooperation with the investigation and trial proceedings while ensuring compliance with the imposed terms.