2021 (5) TMI 976 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondent appeared to have committed offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Perusal of the record shows that the respondent is a native of Afghanistan and there is every possibility that he would abscond and fail to return to India in case he is permitted to go to his country at this stage and thus misuse his liberty. The investigation in the present case is still underway and charge sheet is yet to be filed. In case, the petitioner is allowed to leave the country, the same will hamper further investigation of this case and the filing of the charge sheet. Moreover, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, it is not a fit case where permission to go abroad should be granted. The petition stands allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Permission to visit abroad, deposit cash in lieu of FDR, challenge to orders dated 02.03.2021 and 04.03.2021.

Analysis:

Permission to Visit Abroad:
The petitioner challenged the orders granting the respondent permission to visit abroad for a year. The petitioner argued that the respondent, a foreigner with no assets in India, had allegedly committed offenses under the Customs Act. The petitioner expressed concerns that allowing the respondent to leave the country might hinder the ongoing investigation and legal proceedings. The court noted the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk of the respondent absconding if permitted to go abroad. Consequently, the court set aside the orders granting permission for the respondent to travel abroad.

Deposit Cash in Lieu of FDR:
The respondent initially sought permission to furnish an FDR in a specific amount as a condition for traveling abroad. Subsequently, the respondent requested to deposit cash instead of the FDR, which was also allowed by the court. The petitioner contended that the respondent's previous smuggling admission and the ongoing investigation should prevent any leniency in allowing cash deposit instead of the FDR. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the respondent, a financially struggling individual supporting a family in Afghanistan, required medical treatment and could not sustain a prolonged stay in India without work. The court considered these arguments but ultimately set aside the orders permitting the cash deposit in place of the FDR.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case details, the court concluded that due to the ongoing investigation, the seriousness of the allegations, and the risk of the respondent not returning, it was inappropriate to grant permission for the respondent to travel abroad. Therefore, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders dated 02.03.2021 and 04.03.2021 passed by the Ld. CMM, New Delhi, and disposed of all pending applications.