9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uirement of communicating the grounds of arrest and detention to the accused in writing, in the language known to him is the requirement of law and there cannot be any compromise in the same. Even though there are prima facie materials against the petitioner in support of the case of the respondent, since there is non-compliance of the mandate of law while apprehending and detaining the petitioner, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to fulfiment of conditions imposed - petition allowed. - HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA For the Petitioner (By Sri. Sachin B.S., Advocate) For the Respondent (By Sri. Aravind V. Chavan, Advocate) ORDER PER The petitioner-accused No. 3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 4/2024 of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, pending on the file of the Special Court for Economic offences at Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 135 (1) (b) (A), 135 (1) (c) (A) and 135 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India and the statutory mandate under Section 104 of Customs Act. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition. 7. Per Contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent opposing the petition submitted that even though, the diamonds worth Rs. 7.77 crores and foreign currencies worth Rs. 4.62 Lakhs were recovered from accused Nos. 1 and 2, they were only agents to carry the valuables i.e., the smuggled articles from India to Dubai. But it was as per the instructions of accused No. 3. The statement of Syed Wafa, aged 16 years, who is the owner of YAM Travels was accompanied by his mother was enquired and his statement was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, wherein, he has specifically stated that he is the owner of the YAM Travels and booked the air tickets for accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 06.01.2024 at the instance of the petitioner. He further states that the amount for booking the air tickets was received by him from the present petitioner on the very same day. The bank statement extract of the travel agent is also produced along with the statement of objections which supports the statement of the witness that on 06.01.2024 a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was credited to his a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the services of his counsel. Therefore, it was clear that the grounds of arrest was informed to the petitioner and to his family members. Services of an advocate was engaged by the petitioner and the bail application was moved before the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, it cannot be contended at this stage, that the grounds of arrest was not communicated to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel submits that in Prabir Purkayashta (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the facts of the case, where the copy of remand application was not served on the accused or his advocate. Under such circumstances, it was held that the apprehension and detention of the accused was illegal. But the facts of the present case are entirely different and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayashta (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Trial Court dated 19.05.2024 discloses that learned Judge has satisfied himself about compliance of the requirement of law while apprehending and producing the petitioner before the Court. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 13. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abir Purkayashta (supra) assumes importance. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court even though decided the matter before it on 15.05.2024, holding that, the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention to the person so arrested is to be in writing and non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and the statutory mandate would result the custody or detention being rendered illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the Constitutional Bench decision in Harikisan v/s State of Maharashtra and Ors 1962 SCC ONLINE SC 117, wherein it is held that the communication of grounds of detention is to be given to the detenue in writing and in the language which he understands. It is also held that non-compliance of the said requirement would vitiate the detention as it violates the right of the accused under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to its earlier decision in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v/s Union of India Ors 1981 2 SCC 427 to re-iterate the position of law that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenue in writing, in the language which could be understood by him. It is specificall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
