CRLP/8128/2019 of V.Anil Kumar Vs The Senior Intelligence Officer on 31 December 2019

ORDER

'rlE-xIL4'k-

THE HON'BLE ]USTICE G.SRI DEVI

I:RIMINAL PETITION No.8128 of 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., isfiled by the [petitioner/accused ]seeking to enlarge him on bail inF.No. DRI/HZ|.I/48A/ENQ-55(iNT-33)/2019 registered for the offencepunishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short'the Act').

2. Heard earned counsel for the [petitioner, ]lea-ned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and [perused]the record,

3. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner was arrested alleging that gold bars l'all within themeaning of 'prohibited goods' and since the Hon'ble Court had alsoheld that the [gold ]comes under the [prohibited goods ]and on the saidbasis, the bail application of the [petltioner ]was rejr-.cted. Learnedcounsel fufther submitted that for the purpose of preventing injuryto the economy of the country by the uncontrollable import orexpoft of go d or silver, the Central Government can issue anotification in the official [gazettee prohibiting ]their import eitherabsolutely or subject to such conditions; that the DRI had recordedconfessional s;tatements from the [petitioner ]on 22t.11.2019 and23.11.2019 and his relatives thereafter, under the threat of arrest;that the petitioner was unaware of its contents as he had to signunder compuls;ion on some computer [printouts purported ]to be his voluntary depositions after he had orally given answers to some ofthe questions posed by the officers during interrogation and thesame were retracted at the first opportunity in the bail petition filedbefore the Court below as the same were not voluntary depositionsof the [petitioner; ]that the DRI had not adduced any iota of evidencethat the petitioner had knowledge that the gold ordered by him orthe gold delivered to him was liable to confiscation under Section111 or 113 of the Act; that since the importer was not associated inany manner with the import of the said gold bars, there is nopossibility whatsoever that he knows or would have reason tobelieve that the gold bars were liable for confiscation and as such,the petitioner cannot be accused of any offence under Section 135of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of thepetitioner's absolute lack of knowledge as to the source ofprocurement of the seller of the gold bars in question, there is nolegal ground to presume that he had committed any offence underthe Act much less the offence under Section 135 of the AcU that thepetitioner was not involved in any offence in the earlier occasions;that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents or [previous]convictions; that he hails from a respectable family and his family isengaged in the gold trade since past 125 years with an unblemishedrecord; and that the petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2019.Accordingly, learned counsel [prayed ]to enlarge the [petitioner ]onbail.

4. Sri P.Dharmesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearingfor the respondent, opposed to [grant ]bail to the [petitloner.]

I

I

&n}

5. The respondent filed a counter stating therein that thesummons were issued to the [petitioner ]on 22.71.2079 and hisstatement wa:; recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wherein hehas inter alia admilted to have [purchased ]the foreign markedsmuggled gold and paid for them in cash and as such, he wasarrested and [produced ]before the Special Judge for EconomicOffences, Narnpally and thereafter he was remanded to [judicial]custody. The [petitioner's ]claim that their family is ir' [gold ]businessfor the [past ]125 [years ]with an unblemished record is far from truthas there were instances that the [petitioner ]had [purchased gold ]fromdifferent sources on cash basis which clearly indicates that by doingcash payments he was doing buslness without entering the same inbooks of record in order to avoid the [payment ]of relevant taxes andthe [petitioner ]was dealing with huge [quantities ]of [,3old ]with hugeprofits by evading the applicable tax payments and the modusoperandi adopted by the [petitioner ]in purchasing non-customs dutypaid foreign rnarked gold from one Sri Sachin does not depict him asa bona fide buyer at all. The claim of the [petitioner ]that hisstatements were recorded on 22.17.2019 and 23.11.2019 and hisrelatives thereafter under threat of arrest and that he was made tosign on docrrrnents under compulsion are all fals.r and baselessallegations. The other accused are absconding and the case is underinvestigation and in view of the above, the petitioner is not entitledto be released on bail.

6. In view of the aftve submission of the learned Special PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent that the foreign marked smuggled gold has already been recovered in [pursuance ]of the confession of the [petitioner ]and the [petitioner ]is not having anycriminal antecedents and looking into the nature of allegationslevelled against the petitioner and the facts and circumstances ofthe case, without delving into the merits of the case, I am inclinedto allow this Criminal Petition subject to the following terms andconditions:-

(i) the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail onhis furnishing a personal bond to the tune ofRs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two localsureties to the like amount each to the satisfaction ofthe learned Special Judge for Economic Offences,Nampally, Hyderabad.his furnishing a personal bond to the tune ofRs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two localsureties to the like amount each to the satisfaction ofthe learned Special Judge for Economic Offences,Nampally, Hyderabad.

(ii) that the petitioner/accused shall not indulge inany similar type of activities, in future;any similar type of activities, in future;

(iii) that the petitioner/accused shall not tamper withthe evidence of prosecution witnesses;the evidence of prosecution witnesses;

(iv) that the petitioner/accused shall not intimidate orgive threat to any person or official or any of theirfamily members during the period of trial;

(v) that the petitioner/accused shall cooperate withthe Investigating Agency in procuring the relevantdocuments and other material, as required by theauthorities for the purpose of investigation and shallcooperate with the Investigating Agency inconcluding investigation;

(vi) that the petitioner/accused shall surrender hispassport and Visa before the respondent authoritiesand shall not leave the [jurisdiction ]of the Court -/

€-"r..8

\

concerned or Country without prior permission of theCourt [,:Oncerned;]

(viii) that the petitioner/accused shall appear beforethe Investigating Officer on every Monday between10 am and 2 pm for a period of four months or tillcompletion of investigation, whichever is earlier.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this cr minal petition, shall stand closed.

SE/- B,SATYA [VATTII]ASSISTANT[R][ GtSl"RAr(]

//rR.JE [coPYll]

SECTION [OFFICER]

To

1. The Special The Special Special [JLrdge ][for ][Economic ][Offences' ][\1*,p1llv' ][Hyderabad][[Hvderabad]]

1. The Special The Special Special ;. ii]: ;G;"i"ni"nt, [criancnatquaa Prison' ][[Hvderabad]]3. The [Senior ][tntettlgence'6ff1t"r]iir."tt"r"t" ][oi ][n"u"t ][Je ][Intelligence' H'N0 ][10-]2-289l57llana [z, ][suryfvunlii ][n"iio"nty -II ][Cross Road' ][Shantinagar']^ [+Ii":rit;?l$!"1,'. ]iEi" [sri-#i"iua' ][Prosecutor, ][ciui"'eoula' ][Hieh ][Advocate ][court ][at ][(oPlrc)][Hvderabad ][(oUr)];. il; '6. One [sPare ][coPY ]

I

4$3..

HIGH COURT

GSD,JDATED: 31.12.21019

ORDER:

CRLP. NO:8128 of [2O19]s\/+$

BAIL