9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent : Mr.Satish Aggarwal ORDER Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail for violation of the provisions of Section 9 of the Central Excise Act 1944 as he is alleged to have evaded the excise duty to the extent of ₹ 118 crores. It is urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in no manner responsible for the evasion of duty as he had resigned way bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion carried out speaks that present petitioner is also responsible for evading the payment of duty. He also urged that even he was not a Director but he was share holder of the company and, therefore, in that capacity he is liable to be prosecuted and he is not entitled to anticipatory bail, evasion being too heavy. While meeting such arguments, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, he prayed for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the enforcement has opposed the bail and also cited authority titled as Uma Shankar Sitani Vs. Directorate General of Anti Evasion Crl.M(M) 2874/96 and particularly argued that anticipatory bail should not be granted to him because of evasion of huge duty. He urged so on the strength of judgment reported in 2001 (1) JCC, Delhi 146 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties and taking into consideration that the petitioner was neither a Director of the company for the conduct of the business of the company and substantial investigation in this case has been completed because of long detention of his co accused, therefore, sending the petitioner to jail shall serve no useful purpose. This court would have imposed the condition by directing the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
