2004 (9) TMI 114 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification for releasing respondents on bail.
2. Allegations of misleading information by respondents.
3. Need for respondents' judicial custody for further investigation.
4. Petitioner's contention on improper exercise of discretion by Magistrate.
5. Respondents' cooperation with the investigation.
6. Role of Settlement Commissioner in the matter.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification for releasing respondents on bail:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated May 21, 2004, which released the respondents on bail. The petitioner argued that there was no just reason for granting bail, especially given the complexity of the case and the misleading information provided by the respondents during the investigation. The Magistrate, however, observed that the investigation was almost completed and that there was no need for judicial custody merely for recording further statements, as several statements had already been recorded. Additionally, the respondents had paid a sum of Rs. 1 Crore as duty, indicating their bona fides. These reasons led the Magistrate to grant bail.

2. Allegations of misleading information by respondents:
The petitioner contended that the respondents had given wrong information and misleading clues during the investigation, necessitating further investigation. The petitioner emphasized that the respondents' misleading information hindered the investigation process. However, the respondents argued that they had fully cooperated with the investigating officer, providing all necessary information and relevant documents. The respondents claimed that they had no control over the actions of the supporting manufacturer and had taken corrective measures by paying the customs duty.

3. Need for respondents' judicial custody for further investigation:
The petitioner argued that judicial custody was necessary to facilitate a thorough investigation, citing previous court decisions that emphasized the importance of custody for effective interrogation and investigation. The petitioner asserted that the Magistrate's decision to grant bail prematurely hindered the investigation. However, the Magistrate noted that the respondents had already given several statements under oath and provided relevant documents, making further judicial custody unnecessary. The Magistrate concluded that the respondents' presence in custody was not required for recording additional statements.

4. Petitioner's contention on improper exercise of discretion by Magistrate:
The petitioner argued that the Magistrate exercised discretion wrongly in granting bail and that the High Court should intervene to correct the situation. The petitioner relied on various court decisions to support the argument that the Magistrate's order was unjustifiable and that the High Court should set it aside. However, upon deeper scrutiny of the documents, the court found that the Magistrate's decision was based on valid considerations, including the completion of material investigation, the respondents' cooperation, and their bona fide actions. The court concluded that the Magistrate did not exercise discretion improperly.

5. Respondents' cooperation with the investigation:
The respondents contended that they had fully cooperated with the investigation, providing all necessary information and documents. They argued that they had attended the office of the investigating officer regularly and answered all questions posed to them. The respondents also highlighted their efforts to take corrective measures by paying the customs duty. The court noted that the respondents had indeed cooperated with the investigation and provided relevant documents, supporting the Magistrate's decision to grant bail.

6. Role of Settlement Commissioner in the matter:
The respondents mentioned that they had approached the Settlement Commissioner, who was competent to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. The respondents argued that the Settlement Commissioner's involvement made it inappropriate to cancel the bail granted by the Magistrate. The court acknowledged the role of the Settlement Commissioner but did not delve into the larger question of the Commissioner's jurisdiction. The court focused on the immediate issue of bail and found no good reason to set aside the Magistrate's order.

Conclusion:
The High Court, after considering the rival submissions and scrutinizing the documents, found that the Magistrate had recorded valid reasons for granting bail. The court observed that the material investigation was almost completed, the respondents had cooperated with the investigation, and their judicial custody was unnecessary for recording further statements. The court concluded that the Magistrate did not exercise discretion improperly and dismissed the petition, upholding the order granting bail to the respondents.