9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d taken, the Magistrate proceeded to observe that the investigation is almost completed and essentially on that basis, proceeded to release the respondents on bail. The Magistrate has also observed in this bail order, which is questioned before this court that there is no need to put the respondents in custody just for mere recording of their further statements on oath because already their several statements are recorded. The other reason which has weighed with the Magistrate that the respondents have already paid a sum of Rs. l Crore as duty to the applicants which shows their bona fides. Essentially on these three grounds, the Magistrate proceeded to release the respondents on bail immediately on the next day after arrest. The respondents, it is not disputed, were arrested on 20th May, 2004 and were produced on the next day before the Magistrate for remand along with formal application filed on behalf of the applicants in that behalf. The respondents in turn preferred application for bail, which has been granted by the concerned Magistrate by an order dated May 21, 2004. 2. Mr. Satpute, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate has hastened the matter and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... economic offences. Placing reliance on the above observations, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even in the present case the Magistrate declined fair opportunity to the investigating agency to make proper investigation and that granting of bail immediately on the next date was in the nature of releasing the respondents on anticipatory bail. On these arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 969 (Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) in particular Para 11 contends that such bail intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature especially when the investigation is in progress. Reliance is also placed on the decision of our High Court in the case of Say Gaud Kondagaud Bhurewar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2000 (4) Mh. L. J. 840 to contend that the arguments as canvassed on behalf of the respondents that more than four months have elapsed from the release on bail it will not be proper to withdraw the liberty granted to the respondents cannot be countenanced. Reliance was placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer could be and was being supervised by the Government officials of customs and excise department. Moreover, it is common ground that the containers were filled at factory premises and were transported from Nimach. It is, therefore, submitted that in such a situation the respondents cannot be blamed for mal-administration or any improper dealing by the said supporting manufacturer. Notwithstanding this respondents have immediately responded to the situation by offering to pay the requisite amount towards customs duty without prejudice to their rights and contentions, which shows their bona fide. The Counsel for the respondents further contend that the record clearly indicates that after the goods were imported the same were immediately transported for storage at Kanpur at Girdhar Cold Storage. The movement of the goods is supported by the documents which are already supplied to the I.O. The said documents would also indicate that the goods actually reached Girdhar Cold Storage at Kanpur from where the same were forwarded to the supporting manufacturer. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the respondents have attended the office of the I.O. on every singular d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the present offence is one essentially based on documentary evidence. If it is so, it cannot be said that the Magistrate was wrong in observing that material investigation is almost complete. Besides, the Magistrate has also observed that the judicial custody of the accused for recording of further statement was not necessary, inasmuch as even the earlier statements of the respondents which came to be recorded are on oath under Section 108 of the Customs Act. As the respondents have not only recorded statements but also produced relevant documents during the enquiry, no fault can be found with the Magistrate for observing that presence of the respondents in judicial custody for recording of further statements was unnecessary. Besides, the Magistrate has also taken into account the fact that as soon as the mischief came to light, the respondents volunteered to take corrective measures by depositing a sum of Rs. 1 Crore without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The correspondence exchanged by the respondents would also indicate their anxiety to unearth the mischief caused by the supporting manufacturer. In substance, the Magistrate was convinced that the respondents we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
