9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aims himself to be an employee of the firm and is shown to be an ordinary resident of Mumbai as he usually works in Mumbai. However, no document has been brought on record to indicate that the applicant is an ordinary resident of Mumbai. No identity document, no bank statement, no residence proof, lease document/rent agreement has been filed which could indicate that the applicant is a resident in Mumbai. From the perusal of the said statement all that can be seen is that there are certain random entries which is corresponding to the name of the applicant and allegedly the family members of the applicant but insofar as the payment of salary is concerned, there is no statement indicating the consistency and regularity of time and amount which is attached to the payment of salary. In absence of any such clear material, it cannot prima-facie be ascertained at this stage that the applicant was the employee and was sent by his employers to sell the ornaments/gold and collect cash toward the sale proceeds. Prima-facie, complicity of the applicant is evident and at this stage and this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, the bail application of the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant. In the said locker, gold ornaments measuring 26500.000 grams valued at Rs. 12,42,62,400/- was recovered. 9. As per the case of the prosecution, the gold pieces, gold ornaments so recovered was smuggled and is made from gold from foreign origin. 10. As per the seizure memo, dated 21.02.2024, the following items were recovered and seized:- Sl No Packages Description of Goods Quantity Total Value of the Goods (In Rs. ) Identifying description 1 One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal Gold Bar cut pieces and Gold Ornaments of 18K without Hallmark and HUID 41.900 2,68,160/- P-1 517.000 24,81,600/- 2 One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal Gold Ornaments of 18K without Hallmark and HUID 7700.000 3,69,60,000/- P-2 3 One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal Gold Ornaments of 18K without Hallmark and HUID 26500.000 12,42,62,400/- P-3 4 One Plastic box wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal Indian Currency 29000 notes (Rs.500/- denomination) 1,45,00,000/- P-4 5 1 Trolley Bag wrapped with markeen and sealed with DRI Seal Indian Currency 21000 notes (Rs.500/- denomination) 1,05,00,000/- P-5 6 1 Trolley Bag wrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n who deals with jewellery trading. 17. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that insofar as the present applicant is concerned, apart from the items recovered and seized, no further incriminating evidence or information could be elicited. 18. It has further been pointed out that flat situated in Chowk, Lucknow had been taken on rent by the employer and this was used for office purposes while dealing with its business associates/customers. The firm M/s. Ram Laxman Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, both are duly registered firms an they pay their taxes including the GST to the Government. Nothing could be found to indicate that the gold ornaments which were allegedly seized were made from gold of foreign origin. The allegation that the gold was smuggled from Nepal is absolutely incorrect and there is no credible or incriminating documents or statement in this regard. 19. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the employer of the applicant M/s. Ram Laxman Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels admit and claim that the aforesaid cash as well as the gold items seized belonged to them and any duty, taxes or any penalty if leviable will be paid by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the quantity of gold and gold ornaments and cash have been recovered and this fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the co-accused Lalmohan Panja were in possession of the items recovered. Even though it is submitted that the said items belonged to the employer of the applicant but the fact remains that insofar as the recovery is concerned that in itself is not disputed. 27. It is also not disputed that the other co-accused namely Sumit Kumar Rastogi has been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of the order dated 03.04.2024. However, the distinguishing feature is that in the case of Sumit Kumar Rastogi, a locker was allegedly recovered from the house of the said co-accused Sumit Kumar Rastogi, but the key and the combination of opening the said locker was known and given by the applicant. This apparently indicates that the constructive possession was with the applicant. The name of the other co-accused Sumit Kumar Rastogi surfaced on the statement of the co-accused i.e. the applicant and considering this aspect, the Court had enlarged the co-accused Sumit Kumar Rastogi on bail. 28. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce amongst other. Moreover, if the said two firms M/s. Ram Laxman Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels were dealing in such scale of business as sought to be projected then there ought to have been better financial and taxation records available. 34. It is quite surprising that the applicant has filed the accounts statement of his employer firms but has not filed his own bank statement. At this stage, where the material brought on record is in a fluid state coupled with the absence of clear documentation indicating from whom the applicant received the salary and there are two separate firms of which the applicant states that he is an employee of both the firms, has also not clearly explained nor as to the nature of the work performed by the applicant. 35. Moreover, there has been no clear statement or explanation given by the applicant that if at all he was authorized to collect the sale proceeds from various customers of his employer firm then who were the said customers of the firm, who had paid such large cash proceeds and in absence of any document/diary or some record regarding as to which customer paid how much, when and against what item sold by which of the two firms, it becomes do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
