Court grants anticipatory bail in excise duty evasion case under Section 9 of Central Excise Act 1944

The court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged excise duty evasion under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act 1944. Despite opposition from the enforcement agency citing seriousness of the offense, the court considered the petitioner's lack of involvement during the relevant period and completed investigation due to co-accused detention. The court found jail detention unnecessary, given the petitioner's resignation before the evasion period, and imposed a condition of executing a personal bond and cooperating with investigations when required.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail for alleged violation of Section 9 of the Central Excise Act 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for allegedly evading excise duty amounting to Rs. 118 crores, arguing that he was not responsible for the evasion as he had resigned in 2005, and the evasion related to the year 2006-07 when he was not the Director of the company. The prosecution contended that Section 9 applied to any person evading duty, regardless of their position in the company, and that the petitioner, being a shareholder, was liable for prosecution. The defense emphasized Section 9 AA, stating that the prosecution must show the petitioner's involvement in the offense, either as a Director or in charge of the company's affairs. They also highlighted that the offense was now compoundable and non-cognizable, limiting the enforcement agency's power to arrest without proper procedure.

The enforcement agency opposed anticipatory bail, citing previous judgments and the seriousness of the duty evasion. They argued against bail based on the potential hindrance to the investigation, as seen in a previous case involving grave allegations of foreign exchange. The petitioner's counsel countered these arguments by asserting that the petitioner was not a Director during the relevant period and was not responsible for the company's business conduct, making the cited authority inapplicable to the current case.

After hearing both parties, the court noted that the petitioner was not a Director or responsible for the company's business conduct during the alleged offense period. Considering the completed investigation due to the detention of co-accused, the court found sending the petitioner to jail unnecessary. While the court could have imposed a deposit condition for the alleged duty evasion, the petitioner's resignation in 2005 in relation to the 2006-07 evasion made such a directive inappropriate. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail, with the condition of executing a personal bond and joining investigations when summoned by enforcement officers.

---