2008 (4) TMI 326 - HC - Customs

Prosecution - commission of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act - anticipatory bail seeked - Held that - True, investigation is yet on but it is not a case where custodial interrogation shall be essential as the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the petitioner can be subjected to interrogation without being given custody to the respondent, therefore, it is a fit case where petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail for apprehended arrest by Directorate Revenue Intelligence-customs officials for offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The Directorate Revenue Intelligence suspected the petitioner's involvement in the import of electronic goods by misdeclaration through five companies. The Directorate alleged that the petitioner was the key figure behind these activities and benefited significantly from them. They argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the truth. On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel contended that there was insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the mentioned firms. They highlighted that a co-accused, Ajay Sharma, had admitted to importing goods in the name of these firms and was willing to pay the customs duty and penalty. The petitioner's counsel also pointed out discrepancies in the statements of individuals involved in the case.

The Additional Solicitor General argued that there was substantial evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime. They mentioned a cheque issued by the petitioner for customs clearance of goods imported by one of the firms in question. However, the court noted that apart from Rajaram Yadav's statement, there was a lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the evasion of customs duty. The court emphasized that custodial interrogation was not essential in this case as it was primarily based on documentary evidence. Therefore, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions such as cooperating with the investigation, not leaving the country without court permission, and surrendering the passport if not already done.

In conclusion, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting the lack of substantial evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged evasion of customs duty. The court emphasized the importance of cooperation in the investigation and imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner's availability for further inquiries.