2014 (3) TMI 758 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Consideration of Anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. offences alleged u/s 420, 417 & 465 IPC & 135 of Customs Act - Three prior cases of smuggling Red Sander wood No co-operation earlier by accused - Held That - Petitioner is already involved in three cases of smuggling of red sanders - In two cases, adjudication orders were passed - The department imposed on him a penalty - The present 4th case relates to smuggling of red sanders wood - Interrogation of several persons leads to accused - Accused need to be interrogated - There is no cooperation from him - Already he is involved in similar cases - The Court has to consider the seriousness of the accusations, availability of incriminating materials, its nature, magnitude of the offence alleged, past activities and prior cases as against the accused and the need for his custodial interrogation - When these factors are as against the petitioner then it will not be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail - In this case, there is strong prima facie case for the department as against the petitioner - Not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail - Decided against accused.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offenses under Sections 420, 417, 465 IPC and Section 135 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, facing allegations of smuggling red sanders, sought anticipatory bail claiming vendetta by customs officials. The department argued the petitioner's involvement as a key figure in red sanders smuggling, citing prior cases and non-cooperation. The court directed the department to produce the case file for review.

The court noted the prohibition on red sanders export and the high value they carry in foreign markets, leading to misdescription by smugglers. Specific intelligence on red sanders smuggling led to a container seizure containing the wood mislabeled as plastic granules. Statements under Section 108 Customs Act revealed the involvement of individuals like Akbar and Maniverma in the smuggling ring.

The court detailed how the petitioner, Suresh, rented premises for a fictitious company involved in the smuggling operation. When officials attempted to search Akbar's residence near Suresh's, it was found locked, and Akbar evaded authorities. Despite summons, Suresh did not cooperate with the investigation, leading to the plea for anticipatory bail.

Considering the seriousness of the accusations, incriminating evidence, the magnitude of the offense, prior cases, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, the court found a strong prima facie case against the petitioner, denying the plea for anticipatory bail.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the lack of merit for granting relief in light of the evidence and circumstances presented in the case.