9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich were found in the container, as per the shipping bills, is the petitioner. However, the only claim of the petitioner is that he had signed the shipping bills, but was not aware of what was stuffed inside the container by the stuffing agent and he was under the premise that the stuff inside the container was cobble stones. If the stand of the petitioner that he is in no way connected with the prohibited seized material, the course that is open to the petitioner is to subject himself for enquiry and give all the details before the respondent for them to find out the truth of the matter and nab the culprit. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner having not revealed any information about the said Penchiliah, who is said to be the source of the red sanders logs, the respondent must conduct a full fledged investigation to find out the real culprit in the issue and at this point of time, allowing the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail, would work hardship to the respondent in conducting the investigation as the interference by the petitioner in the investigation by the respondent cannot be ruled out. Therefore, acceding to the request of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was dismissed on 2.6.21 and the further petition for the very same relief in Crl. M.P. No.10737/21 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 17.6.21. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent, more specifically during the present pandemic situation, which would be detrimental to his safety, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not aware of the stuffing of the red sanders logs along with the cobble stones and that he had signed in the shipping bills purely on the basis of the trust, which he reposed in the third party, which had done the stuffing and that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is ready and willing to co-operate with the respondent. 5. In fact, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though summons were issued to him by the respondent for his personal appearance on three occasions, yet the petitioner did not appear for the reason that due to threat or compulsion, he may be made to give incriminating statements, which would have major ramifications and only for the said purpose the petitioner had avoided appearing before the respondent. However, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The petitioner had even gone on to state that the relevant details pertaining to the said Penchiliah are not readily available with him and that he would produce and divulge the same the next day. However, when the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 9.7.21 also, the petitioner had not disclosed any information about the said Penchiliah such as address, phone number, etc., The petitioner had given evasive answers regarding the identity of the said Penchiliah and, thereafter, the petitioner had requested to go for lunch and the petitioner was permitted by the respondents to go for lunch and come back for enquiry. However, neither the petitioner returned nor received the calls when contacted on his mobile. Equally, the counsel for the petitioner also did not respond to the calls from the respondent. 8. It the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is part of an international smuggling racket pertaining to smuggling of red sanders and intentionally the petitioner is hiding the details pertaining to the smuggling racket as also the details of Penchiliah. Further, the petitioner has spoken about one Ran Hong Bin, but equally has not reveal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere, thereafter, collected by the petitioner for submission once the container was sealed by the CFS. The interception had happened after the sealing of the container and it is the admitted case of the parties that the seal was intact when the interception was made by the respondent. Opening of the container in the presence of the CFS revealed the red sanders logs, which were found stuffed along with the cobble stones. 12. It is not in dispute that the owner of the materials, which were found in the container, as per the shipping bills, is the petitioner. However, the only claim of the petitioner is that he had signed the shipping bills, but was not aware of what was stuffed inside the container by the stuffing agent and he was under the premise that the stuff inside the container was cobble stones. If the stand of the petitioner that he is in no way connected with the prohibited seized material, the course that is open to the petitioner is to subject himself for enquiry and give all the details before the respondent for them to find out the truth of the matter and nab the culprit. However, from the counter of the respondent and the submissions advanced by the respondent, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
