2002 (1) TMI 82 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Absconding allegations against applicant No. 1
2. Allegations of fraudulent activities and wrongful gains
3. Necessity of custodial interrogation
4. Interpretation of previous judgments regarding custodial interrogation
5. Decision on granting anticipatory bail to applicant Nos. 2 and 3

Analysis:

Issue 1: The defense argued that applicant No. 1 was not absconding as he had been cooperating with the investigating agency, despite being out of the country for business purposes. The defense highlighted that applicant No. 1's family members were also concerned about potential arrests in connection with the alleged offense.

Issue 2: The prosecution alleged that applicant No. 1 orchestrated a fraudulent scheme involving high-quality chemicals being tampered with to lower their grade before export, resulting in significant wrongful gains. The prosecution emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to gather crucial information by taking applicant No. 1 to various locations.

Issue 3: The prosecution relied on a previous judgment regarding custodial interrogation in cases involving public interest, citing the need for applicant No. 1 to be in custody for effective investigation, similar to cases related to bank scams and FERA offenses.

Issue 4: The court differentiated the present case from previous judgments, emphasizing the examination of documents as the primary focus. The court concluded that custodial interrogation was not essential in this scenario, opting instead for applicant No. 1 to attend the investigating agency's office daily for three weeks to assist in providing information.

Issue 5: The court granted anticipatory bail to applicant Nos. 2 and 3, highlighting their distinct circumstances from applicant No. 1. The court directed applicant No. 1 to attend the investigating agency's office daily for a specified period and imposed restrictions on contacting witnesses or tampering with documents.

In conclusion, the court allowed the application, directing the investigating officers to release the applicants on bail if arrested, with specific conditions for applicant No. 1's daily attendance at the investigating agency's office. The court emphasized cooperation with the investigation while ensuring the safeguarding of public interest and the integrity of the process.