9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... despite having knowledge of selling / detention of goods, the FIR has been filed on 19.04.2021. Considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary - the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, on his executing a personal bond of ₹ 10,000/- with one surety of like amount on the following conditions - application allowed. - R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 8651 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - Honourable Mr. Justice A.S. Supehia For the Applicant(s) : Mr.Devan Parikh, Senior Advocate For Mr Nirav P Shah For the Respondent(s) : Mr.Himanshu K Patel, App ORAL ORDER [1] Heard the learned advocates for the respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained vide panchnama and was kept in the factory premises for safe custody. 3.2 The Departmental Officer had again visited the premises on 20.04.2017 and had found that the factory is in closed condition and one of the goods detained and only goods worth ₹ 18,00,000/- was available and the remaining finished goods were not available. The officer had immediately informed to his High Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The officer was subsequently transferred. Again the newly appointed officer had also reported to this Higher Authority about shortage in detained goods vide letter dated 01.02.2018. [4] Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Devan Parikh for the applicant has submitted that the department at the first i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntio is already closed due to precarious financial condition and could not be able to make payment to its suppliers. Upon initiation of the proceedings under IBC Act by one of the suppliers, Interim Resolution Professional was appointed under order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the NCLT, Ahmedabad. 4.3 Learned advocate for the applicant has also submitted that upon completion of moratorium, the Adjudicating Authority had passed an order for initiation of liquidation of M/s. Regent Granito (I) Ltd. and Liquidator has been appointed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 23.09.2020. It further submitted that there is delay in registration of FIR as the period of offence mentioned in the FIR is from 10.11.2016 to 20.04.2017 and the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, has submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. [5] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State while placing reliance on the Report dated 30.06.2021, has submitted that despite undertaking given by the applicant vide communication dated 10.11.2016, the applicant has sold away the goods. He has further submitted that specific directions were issued by the concerned authority not to sell the goods as there was outstanding government dues of ₹ 6,86,57,864/-. It is submitted that the order of detention passed on 18.10.2016 under Central Excise Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. [7] This Court has considered following aspects; (a) The role attributed to the applicant; (b) The civil proceedings are pending on the issue; (c) The applicant has co-operated with the investigation; (d) Prima facie, all the documents and matters are in the custody of the Investigating Officer (e) The FIR has been registered belatedly after more the 4 years; (f) Considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. [8] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [10] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant, if he considers it proper and just and the Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the concerned Magistrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
