9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in anticipation of arrest for fraudulent evasion of customs duty. Interpretation of the bailable or non-bailable nature of the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consideration of ill-health as a ground for seeking anticipatory bail. Analysis: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail due to alleged involvement in fraudulent evasion of customs duty amounting to Rs. 4.64 crores through misdeclaration and under valuation of MPEG cards imported by four firms. The petitioner admitted control over the firms involved and made payments towards the evaded customs duty. The respondent asserted the petitioner's role as the mastermind behind the import scheme, involving procurement, transportation, and sale of the goods in the local market. The petitioner's health condition, including being a cardiac patient, was highlighted as a ground for seeking bail. The respondent argued for the continuation of the investigation to collect evidence of the petitioner's involvement in the crime. Allegations of lack of full cooperation by the petitioner and his alleged evasion of participation in the investigation were raised. Legal precedents were cited to oppose the grant of bail, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation in economic offences. The petitioner's counsel contended that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act is bailable, citing relevant case law to support this claim. The court analyzed the classification of offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the punishment prescribed under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act. It concluded that the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) is non-bailable, based on legal interpretations and previous court decisions. The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the bailable nature of the offence. Additionally, the court emphasized that ill-health does not exempt individuals from criminal liability, citing previous judgments that discouraged granting concessions based on health conditions in economic offence cases. In light of the evidence presented, the court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, citing the ongoing investigation, the petitioner's lack of full cooperation, and the seriousness of the allegations. The court highlighted the need for a thorough probe and declined the plea for bail, vacating any interim orders previously granted.
|
