9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 556 - DSC - CustomsSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - import of Diamond - gross over valuation of goods or not - mis-declaration of value of goods or not - HELD THAT - There is substance in the prosecution case that there is mis declaration in terms of value of the goods. It appears that diamond in the form which were recovered appears to be prohibited goods. The prosecution is suspecting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing activities behind import of such diamond. Custodial interrogation of the present applicant is just and necessary. If prearrest bail is allowed, it will derail the investigation which is in progress. The aforesaid citation relied upon by the applicant relating to merit of case are not helpful to the applicant at this stage. If the investigation machinery proceeds for arrest of the applicant they will follow the necessary guidelines as held in SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT . The interrogation with the accused in respect of the alleged offence is necessary for which presence of accused with the investigation machinery is necessary. Thus perusal of the prosecution material at this juncture prima facie it appears that there is mis declaration of the value. The Circumstances on record shows that this is not fit case for anticipatory bail and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, more especially in light of the fact that offence being economic offence affecting the national economy. The applicant being actively involved in the alleged offence therefore, he will not be entitled for pre arrest bail. The bail application dismissed.
Issues involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with offences under the Customs Act 1962. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Allegation of false implication - The applicant is alleged to be falsely implicated in a case involving overvaluation of imported rough diamonds. - The applicant apprehends arrest based on statements by the arrested director of the importing company. - Prosecution contends that there is a possibility of witness tampering and threatening if the accused is released on bail. Issue 2: Prosecution's case - Prosecution alleges that the imported rough diamonds were grossly overvalued, leading to misdeclaration and fraud. - Specific intelligence indicated overvaluation, and subsequent valuation by an expert panel confirmed the overvaluation. - Concerns raised about the financial standing of the importing company and lack of proper documentation for the import. - Prosecution suspects involvement in money laundering and terrorist financing activities behind the import. Issue 3: Applicant's defense - Applicant denies involvement in the alleged offense and argues for pre-arrest bail. - Applicant's counsel cites various judgments in support of the bail application. - Prosecution's evidence includes statements by company directors and customs broker implicating the applicant in the offense. Judgment: - After considering the prosecution's case and defense arguments, the court finds that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. - The court rejects the anticipatory bail application, citing the seriousness of the economic offense and the active involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime. - The court emphasizes the importance of custodial interrogation for the progress of the investigation and the national economy's interests. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments, and the court's decision regarding the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving offenses under the Customs Act 1962.
|
