9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, Mr.Sanket S. Kale, has filed Affidavit-in-reply dated 7/12/2015 and has opposed this application. 3. Brief facts, emerge from the record, are as under: That the Crime Branch of Ahmedabad city had received a secret and authentic information that huge consignment of gold, is being illegally, going to arrive at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport and, therefore, Special Operation Group headed by Police Inspector B.D.Jadeja along with his team, were keeping watch in the airport area i.e. out side of terminal. On 24/02/2015 three accused namely Clifford Antony D'Costa, Virendrasingh and Sapna Vaghela were successful in coming out from the Airport terminal with illegal consignment of 60 bars of gold, weighting 60 Kgs., having worth at Rs. 16 Crores. Present two applicants/accused namely, Jayvirsing Kaden and Kapil Jaydevsingh Dagar and one another person namely Dinesh Desai had come to receive those three persons, all of six accused were cough raid handed by the said team while they were trying to load the consignment in a four wheeler. Accordingly Panchnama was prepared and an FIR being C.R.No.I-15 of 2015 was registered on the same day i.e. on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr.Chetan Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the applicants vehemently submitted that respondent- Customs Authority has deliberately prolong the investigation and, therefore, though they are behind the bar pursuant to an offence registered by DCB Police Station on 24/02/2015, the applicants were arrested for the present offence after more than six months. He would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the present applicants were arrested on 24/02/2015 by DCB Crime and were in judicial custody up to 29/08/2015 when the applicants were formally arrested by the respondent authority. He would submit that even if prima facie, it is believed that the case put forward by DCB Crime that 60 gold bars worth Rs. 16 Cores was illegally taken out from the airport terminal by those three accused, who had traveled from Dubai to Ahmedabad and were found with the same, it is the case of the prosecution the applicants were allegedly had came to receive them, the respondent - Customs authority did not care to arrest them immediately and waited for considerable long time i.e. for more than six months. He would further submit that even after their arrest, the respondent agency has deliberately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by the court i.e. nature of accusation and punishment; nature of supporting evidence, apprehension of tampering with witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant, etc. He therefore would submit that the applicants may be released on bail during pendency of the trial. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Hriday Buch, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has opposed this application by taking me through the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the department as well as through the statements of witnesses namely Pravinbhai, Yogeshbhai Patel, etc. as well as statements of applicants-accused recorded u/s.108 of the Act. He would submit that brother of applicant No.1, who is an Indian National, has settled at Dubai, who is regularly dealing with such illegal activities like sending gold bars in huge quantity without paying custom duties. He would submit that Red Corner Notice has been issued against brother of applicant No.1. He would further submit that as per their own statements recorded u/s.108 of the Act, in past also, he has received about 12 consignments, for which, investigation is yet to be carried out. By taking me through the Affidavit, it is explained that how the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to investigate the case i.e. from 24/02/2015 to 27/10/2015 i.e. date of filing the complaint before the learned Magistrate. It is true that huge consignment of gold i.e. more than Rs. 16 Crores were seized by the customs department but it also fact that no procedure under Chapter XIV of the Act, has been initiated for confiscating the goods. As far as allegations made by the prosecution that in past also, the applicants had indulged in similar activities, which is under investigation, in my opinion, that would not the the ground to reject the application, since the authority had sufficient time to complete the investigation. I have also considered the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) as well as in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V/s. Rajesh Ranjan reported in 2004(7) SCC 528, has held that the factors, which are required to be considered for granting bail would be: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
