2022 (8) TMI 554 - Other - Customs

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - deficit of gold in consignment is recovered - possibility of destroying evidence, tampering of witnesses and mislead investigation - evasion of customs duty - HELD THAT - On perusal of documents on record, it is clear that there was deficit of gold in consignment. It is also admitted fact that father of applicant was arrested. There was search of premises and company of applicant. Deficit gold was found, which is also informed to the Customs Officer. As per the say of respondent, there is no case of evasion of Custom's Duty. As the record of the Consignment and other necessary facts are with Custom Officer, father of applicant being Director and responsible person for export of consignment is already arrested and investigated, documents are already seized and deficit gold is already informed. In such circumstances, arrest of applicant and his detention do not appear necessary. In the event of arrest, applicant is entitled to be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. - Deficit of gold in consignment - Seizure of consignment under Section 110 of Customs Act - Arrest of applicant's father - Possibility of applicant's arrest - Request for bail to avoid unnecessary harassment - Opposition by Custom Department - Possibility of destroying evidence, tampering of witnesses, and misleading investigation.

Analysis:
The applicant and his father, as Directors of a company engaged in the business of precious stones and diamonds, faced a situation where a deficit of gold was discovered in a consignment leading to its seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Following this, the father was arrested, and the applicant, fearing arrest, sought anticipatory bail. The applicant's counsel argued that the father was primarily responsible for the company's affairs, especially given personal hardships, and the deficit gold was duly reported to the authorities. The Custom Department opposed the bail application, citing concerns about evidence tampering and witness interference, supported by a reference to a Supreme Court judgment.

Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the court acknowledged the deficit in the consignment, the father's arrest, and the ongoing investigation. However, it noted that there was no evidence of Custom Duty evasion and that necessary documents were already in the possession of the authorities. Considering these factors, the court found the applicant's arrest and detention unnecessary. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and preventing interference with witnesses or evidence. The court emphasized the applicant's obligation to attend investigative proceedings, refrain from influencing involved parties, and seek court permission before leaving the country. The court's decision aimed to balance the applicant's rights and the investigative process while safeguarding against potential risks highlighted by the Custom Department.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, court's evaluation, and the final decision regarding the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving a deficit of gold in a consignment and related concerns raised by the Custom Department.