2016 (2) TMI 312 - HC - Customs

Court grants bail in Customs Act case, orders Rs. 60 Lakh payment.

AMARJEET SINGH JOLLY Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AND 1

The court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under the Customs Act. The court noted the applicant's attempt to benefit from the ... Offences under Sections 132, 135 and 135A of the Customs Act, 1962 - wrongful availing duty drawback - application for regular bail - Held that:- applicant is behind the bar since 05.10.2015 and the investigation is almost over qua the present applicants. - The applicant shall pay an amount of ₹ 60 Lakh - this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the offence registered under the Customs Act. Issues:Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under Sections 132, 135, and 135A of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The applicant filed an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under Sections 132, 135, and 135A of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had already given an undertaking not to claim any duty drawback related to the consignment in question, and the goods had been exported with appropriate permission. The counsel further stated that no notice for recovery of alleged benefits between 2010-2015 had been issued, but the applicant was willing to deposit a reasonable amount concerning the alleged benefits. The investigation was almost complete, and therefore, the applicant should be granted bail.The Standing Counsel for the Government of India, who initiated the proceedings under the Customs Act, highlighted the significant financial losses to the public exchequer due to the alleged actions of the applicant. It was mentioned that the applicant had availed the drawback system between 2010-2015, and steps were being taken to recover the alleged amount. The counsel requested the court to direct the applicant to pay a certain amount to the department.The court considered the arguments presented by both sides and observed that the applicant had tried to benefit from the drawback system concerning the present consignment. It was noted that similar allegations were made regarding past transactions, and the applicant would be directed to pay a reasonable amount. The court took into account the substantial amount involved, amounting to Rs. 2.96 Crores, and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 60 Lakh in the present case. The court also considered the applicant's detention since 05.10.2015, the advanced stage of investigation, and relevant legal precedents before granting bail.In its final decision, the court allowed the application for bail and ordered the release of the applicant on executing a bond of Rs. 1,50,000 with certain conditions. These conditions included the payment of specified amounts within specific time frames, surrendering the passport, remaining present for further investigation, and other obligations to ensure the applicant's compliance with the law. The court emphasized that breach of any conditions would lead to appropriate action, and the trial court should not be influenced by the preliminary observations made while granting bail.