9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious forms cumulatively weighing 10706.65 grams valued at Rs.7,14,13,356/- and cash amounting to Rs.1,80,15,600/- was found at the said premises. Statement of employees Mahipal Vyas and Ummed Singh were recorded which confirmed that the accused were involved in trading of smuggled gold. During search of residential premises of the respondent in Flat No.1401-B, Kanakia Hollywood, Yaari Road, Versova, it was found that the house was in complete disarray. The respondent had tried to destroy the evidence. Some recovery was made from the premises belonging to the other accused Shri. Mohammad Rafique Razvi @ Aarif, consisting of 3772.38 grams of smuggled gold. On 06.03.2024 three mobile phones were recovered and on 19.03.2024 two gold bars were seized from the premises of Sai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society. It is alleged that the respondent is mastermind of racket of gold smuggling into India by evading huge Customs Duty and causing loss to the government exchequer. 3. The cancellation of bail granted to the respondent is sought on various ground which are as under : 1) The respondent with other accused hatched plan to smuggle gold to India and to sell it in the local market on c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent. Therefore, applicant is applying pick and choose policy for cancellation of bail. It is not the case of the applicant that post grant of bail, respondent has committed any act or breach of condition. He attended DRI office on eleven occasions. He submitted letter dated 22.04.2023 for return of articles. Therefore, the respondent was always available for interrogation before the DRI. Show Cause notice dated 30.08.2024 is issued by the applicant under Section 124 of the Customs Act after completion of the investigation. All the statements are recorded. Adjudication process before the Joint Commissioner has been started in August 2024. Therefore, as per the submissions of ld. advocate for the respondent, the investigation is over. 7. Ld. advocate for the respondent further argued that from 16.05.2024, the respondent was detained under COFEPOSA Act. He is released after the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the detention order on 06.03.2025. After release of the respondent on bail, within a very short period preventive detention order was passed against him. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered and appreciated the conditions imposed in the bail order. The present application w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 is pleased to set aside the detention order and to order release of the respondent. Thus from 16.05.2024 till 06.03.2025 the respondent was under detention under COFEPOSA Act. 11. Before adverting to discuss the merits, it will be apposite to go through the judgments relied upon by both the sides on cancellation of bail. In Bhuri Bai V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), relied upon by ld. SPP, in para 19 it is observing that - normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted. Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. 12. In Dolat Ram and Ors. V/s. State of Haryana (supra), relied upon by ld. advocate for the respondent, the Hon'ble Apex Court enumerated the grounds for cancellation of bail. In para No.4, the Hon'ble Court observed as under - 4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after being released on bail : (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. 15. In Arvind Kejriwal V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), relied upon by ld. advocate for the respondent, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 25 observed that "we should not forget the cardinal principle under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". It is further observed therein that the accused has the right to remain silent; he cannot be compelled to make inculpatory statements against himself. 16. In so far as the matter in hand is concerned, in the written contentions in the application, various grounds for cancellation of bail are raised which are already reproduced. During oral submissions, this Court made specific query to ld. SPP as to whether respondent has committed breach of any of the bail conditions imposed by the ld. trial Court. To the said qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed on 03.05.2024. Thereafter on 16.05.2024, the respondent came to be detained under COFEPOSA Act and he was under detention till 06.03.3025 for a period of almost 10 months. Record shows that this application is not pursued, though reply by the respondent is filed on 07.05.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joyi Kitty Joseph V/s. Union of India and Ors. also noted submission of both the sides that this application for cancellation of bail was not pursued by both the sides. The respondent having undergone preventive detention for almost 10 months during pendency of this application is a circumstance weighing in favour of the respondent. 20. It is submitted during the course of oral submissions that complaint in the Court is still not filed by the DRI. The period of more than one year from the date of first remand is elapsed. As per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused becomes entitled to statutory bail if investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, depending on the punishment provided for the offence. The investigating agency can not insist for custody of an accused for indefinite period without completing investigation, in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
