9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 597 - HC - CustomsSeeking grant of Interim Bail - smuggling of gold - whether the petitioners are entitled to get protection as per guidelines issued by the High Power Committee or not? - HELD THAT - The material collected in case diary submitted by the investigating authority, prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioners in alleged offence of smuggling of gold. The petitioner No. 1- Vijay Baid is also facing proceeding under Section 124 of the Customs Act by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow Zonal Unit, Lucknow dated 22.02.2020 and for that the investigation is under progress. The show cause notice has been issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the persons/ persons under any other law for the time being in force including the Customs Act, 1962. This prima facie establishes that the petitioners are habitual offenders. The diary statement of the witnesses also prima facie indicates that the petitioners are very much involved in smuggling of gold and silver, which is injurious to economic growth of the nation. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in recent judgment passed on 19th March, 2021 in case of THE STATE OF KERALA VERSUS MAHESH 2021 (3) TMI 1226 - SUPREME COURT , while examining the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 01/2020 in para 38 held the orders of this Court are not to be construed as any direction, or even observation, requiring release of under-trial prisoners charged with murder, and that too, even before investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is filed. The possibility of the accused /petitioners absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get benefit from order of the Supreme Court and the recommendation of the High Power Committee - The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of interim bail, warranting interference of this Court. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interim bail under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's guidelines on interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. Consideration of economic offences under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 4. The impact of ongoing investigations and potential influence on witnesses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to interim bail under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order dated 22.05.2021 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, which rejected their application for interim bail. The petitioners argued for interim bail based on their engagement in trading gold and silver ornaments and the adverse impact of the pandemic on prison conditions. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's guidelines on interim bail during the COVID-19 pandemic: The petitioners cited the Supreme Court's directions in Suo Motu Petition (C) No. 01/2020 regarding the release of prisoners to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. The High Power Committee's recommendations for releasing under-trial prisoners (UTPs) were discussed, which included criteria such as custody duration and age, but excluded those facing charges under specific severe offences like the Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA, and cases investigated by agencies like CBI, ED, etc. 3. Consideration of economic offences under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: The respondents argued that the petitioners were involved in severe economic offences, including smuggling foreign-origin gold and silver without valid documents, which also fell under the purview of the Money Laundering Act. The seized assets included significant quantities of gold, silver, and unaccounted cash, indicating the gravity of the offence. The petitioners' involvement in smuggling was deemed injurious to the nation's economic growth, and they were considered habitual offenders. 4. The impact of ongoing investigations and potential influence on witnesses: The investigation was ongoing, and the authorities argued that the petitioners' release could hinder the investigation and potentially influence witnesses. The court found that the petitioners' custodial remand was necessary for further investigation, given their significant financial resources and the possibility of tampering with evidence or absconding. Judgment: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Chief Judicial Magistrate's decision to deny interim bail. It was noted that the petitioners did not meet the criteria for interim bail as per the High Power Committee's recommendations and the Supreme Court's guidelines. The court emphasized that economic offences could severely impact national economic conditions and warranted stringent measures. The court also clarified that the observations made were specific to the interim bail consideration and should not influence the trial court's decision on any regular bail application or during the trial.
|
