9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UOI : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv. (DRI) ORDER Heard, Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India through DRI. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 45(o) of 2023 arising out of Unit Case No. 01 of 2023 dated 26.04.2023 registered for the offence under Sections 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the prosecution, on a secret information regarding consignment of foreign origin gold from New Jalpaiguri to Gorakhpur by train, the Intelligence Officer, DRI, apprehended two persons from berth No. 23 of Coach B-6 of Train No. 15077 (Kamakhya -Gomati Nagar weekly express) on 26.04.2023 and on inquiry made by them, they disclosed their identity as Mahendra Kumar and Acchaibar Gupta, both are stated to be of Gorakhpur and simultaneously they admitted that they were carrying foreign origin gold smuggled from Myanmar to India via Manipur concealing them in their Trolley bags. On search, altogether 10 pieces of Gold billions of foreign origin total weighing 4996.150 grams valued to Rs. 3,05,26,476.50/- were recovered from their trolley bags and they fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial custody since 27.04.2023 without no fault. Reiterating the submission of false implication of the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Mahdoom Bava versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 299. He further relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 and submits that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and indisputably the bail is not to be withheld as punishment. He also submits that an accused person enjoys freedom would be in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself, than if he was in custody. In order to buttress his submission, he drawn the attention of this Court towards the various paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments, which are apposite to reproduce herein below. ECONOMIC OFFENSES (CATEGORY D) 66. What is left for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue has already been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 62046 of 2019 with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. Now, charges have been framed in this, which is evident of from Annexure-3. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since17.06.2020., the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant of refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40: 39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds: the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI. On the other hand, learned counsel for the DRI (Union of India) vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of the co-accused persons have been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and further the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 26.04.202 and 27.04.2023 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he has categorically stated that he worked for Shri Adharam Gupta and he has managed his business at Gorakhpur. He further submits that the statement of Adharam Gupta was also recorded on 04.05.2023 under the summons dated 27.04.2023 issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Kolkata, Zonal Unit wherein he has stated that he had come to Kolkata in the year 1996 and worked in a hotel for two years and subsequently moved to Bangkok where he lived for 21 years. He had further admitted that he was indulged in smuggling of foreign clothes and other articles from Thailand and selling the same in Kolkata. He further submits that the CDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
