2010 (4) TMI 851 - HC - Customs

Bail - prayer to set aside certain conditions fixed by the Inspector (Preventive) Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax while granting bail - conditions for being released on bail Bail bond for Rs. 50,000, along with surety of equivalent amount, before the proper officer, appear before the Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise, Customes & Service Tax to give evidence and to submit records/documents called for, as being relevant to the enquiry, not leave the office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, without the prior permission of the Superintendent/Inspector concerned, shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the investigating officer, shall cooperate with the investigation in every possible manner - offence has happened with the knowledge, concern and active involvement of Sri Sharma, the employee in-charge of the Central Excise matters of SISEL. - Held that - petitioner is responsible for the clandestine removal of excisable goods and such offence is with the knowledge/connivance of the petitioner, petitioner shall appear before the authorities concerned as and when summons are issued to him and answer all questions as do not tend to incriminate him, modification to the terms and conditions of bail granted to the petitioner

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of conditions imposed by the Inspector (Preventive) Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax while granting bail.
2. Compliance and reasonableness of bail conditions.
3. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Conditions Imposed by the Inspector (Preventive) Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax While Granting Bail:

The petitioner challenged the conditions imposed by the Inspector (Preventive) Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II, while granting bail. The conditions included furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with equivalent surety, appearing before the Superintendent on all working days for three weeks, and not leaving the office without permission. The petitioner argued that these conditions were perverse, inhuman, capricious, unreasonable, and devoid of justice. The petitioner contended that these conditions were intended to frustrate the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail.

2. Compliance and Reasonableness of Bail Conditions:

The petitioner complied with Condition No. (i) by furnishing the required bail bond and surety. The petitioner argued that the conditions were excessive and intended to harass him. The court examined precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the Orissa High Court, which emphasized that bail conditions should not be harsh or oppressive and should consider the individual financial circumstances of the accused. The court found that the bail bond condition was not excessive given the alleged revenue evasion of Rs. 94 lakhs.

Regarding Condition Nos. (ii) and (iii), the court noted that these conditions effectively amounted to detention, as the petitioner was required to be present at the office from 10.30 A.M. to 6.00 P.M. on all working days for three weeks. This was deemed excessive and tantamount to passing an order of detention in the guise of bail conditions. The court set aside these conditions, directing that the petitioner should appear before the authorities as summoned and answer questions that do not tend to incriminate him.

3. Applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India:

The court examined the applicability of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M.P. Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra, which held that a person named by competent officers as having committed an offense is entitled to the protection of Article 20(3). The court found that since the petitioner had been named in the grounds of arrest as liable for punishment under Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, he was entitled to this protection. The court also noted that the protection under Article 20(3) commences from the moment a person is named by competent officers as having committed an offense.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the bail bond condition but set aside the conditions requiring the petitioner to be present at the office for extended hours. The petitioner was directed to appear before the authorities as summoned and answer non-incriminating questions. The court emphasized that nothing in the order should be seen as an opinion on the merits of the proceedings against the petitioner.