9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations of illegal importation and evasion of customs duty. 3. Violation of conditions of anticipatory bail. 4. Refusal of regular bail by the Chief City Sessions Court. Issue 1: Bail application under Section 482 and Section 439: The revisional petition challenged the order rejecting bail for the petitioner in connection with a case of illegal importation and evasion of customs duty. The petitioner sought to set aside the order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and alternatively requested bail under Section 439 of the same Code. Issue 2: Allegations of illegal importation and evasion of customs duty: The investigation initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence revealed allegations against M/s. Associated Industries for illegal importation of various articles and evasion of customs duty amounting to crores of rupees. The petitioner, allegedly a trusted agent of More Group and a partner in M/s. Associated Industries, was accused of active involvement in the illegal transactions. Issue 3: Violation of conditions of anticipatory bail: The petitioner failed to respond to summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act for investigation purposes, despite multiple summonses. Although granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner did not comply with the condition to report to the Investigating Officer daily. The petitioner's failure to cooperate and abide by the conditions of anticipatory bail raised concerns about impeding the investigation into the serious economic offense. Issue 4: Refusal of regular bail by the Chief City Sessions Court: The Chief City Sessions Court refused the petitioner's request for regular bail citing two main reasons. Firstly, the petitioner's non-compliance with the conditions of anticipatory bail, indicating a violation of the terms imposed. Secondly, the nature of the alleged offense and the significant amount involved in the evasion of customs duty were considered as factors justifying the denial of bail at that stage. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revisional petition, finding no merit in setting aside the order or granting regular bail to the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of abiding by the terms of bail orders and highlighted the seriousness of the economic offense under investigation, leading to the decision to uphold the denial of bail.
|
