9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is bonafide and is willing to deposit Rs.2 crore before the department. Considering the observations made by the Apex Court in case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [ 2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT] i.e. even allegations of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case and whether bail is granted or not, will have to be on the case to case basis of the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. , it is deemed fit to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. The authorities shall release the applicant if he is not required in connection with the any other offence. If breach of any above condition is committed, the Sessions Judge c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The applicant, thereafter, moved an application seeking his regular bail before the courts below and same was rejected vide order dated 06.06.2022 and 28.06.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred present application seeking regular bail. 3. This Court has heard Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Rahul Dholakia, learned counsel for and on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the respondents State and department. 4. Brief facts leading to file present application are that, the applicant is administrator of M/s. JK Traders, engaged in the business of trading of ferrous waste and scrape. The department collected specific intelligence to the effect that the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the applicant are false and frivolous and he has not at all availed and utilized the ITC as being alleged fraudulently. It is in this context, he submitted that the arrest of the applicant is being made against the guidelines issued by the finance department and considering the scheme and object of the Act, prosecution should normally be launched only after adjudication is completed. On factual aspect, it is urged that after the filing of the complaint, no show cause notice is issued fixing the liability and therefore, the maximum punishment is upto 5 years, and case is triable by Magistrate and also compoundable and when the further custody of the applicant is not necessary, keeping behind bar him for an indefinite period, would not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nlarged so as to ensure proper investigation. 7. Having considered the rival contention of respective parties and having regard to the material on record, it appears that the respondent Department failed to point out the facts that the further custody of the applicant is necessary. The entire case is based on documentary evidence and same are in the custody of the department. Record indicates that after filing the complaint, still no show cause notice for determining the liability is issued by the Department. However, the applicant herein has shown his bonafide and is willing to deposit Rs.2 crore before the department. In such circumstances, considering the observations made by the Apex Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Conditions (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; (d) not leave India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; (e) furnish latest address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court; (f) The applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
