2017 (4) TMI 317 - HC - Customs

Court denies bail for accused in importation case involving forgery, misdeclaration, & license violations.

Manish Versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Indore

The court dismissed the bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the accused involved in importing goods without a valid license and ... Bail application - the applicant's case is that he is detained since 5-10-2016 and the investigation will take considerable time to conclude - Revenue's claim is that the applicant has committed forgery and offence under the Explosive Act and Explosive Substance Act, goods were imported without valid import licence and under misdeclaration - Held that: - There are serious allegations against the applicant and to meet the allegations, there is clinching evidence against the applicant. The investigation is in progress. Hence, it is not in the interest of society to release the applicant on bail - application dismissed - decided against applicant. Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under various sections of IPC, Explosives Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Customs Act related to import of goods without valid license and under misdeclaration.Analysis:1. Accused's Company Importing Goods: The accused's company imported goods without a valid import license and under misdeclaration, leading to allegations of forgery and offences under various Acts. The accused's company, located in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), imported items such as Fire Crackers, dietary food supplements, Emamectin Benzoate, and LED TVs along with accessories. The prosecution alleges evasion of customs duty exceeding Rs. ten crores, indicating serious violations.2. Defense's Submission: The defense argues that being in an SEZ, the accused's company can import prohibited goods, and officials from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence have no jurisdiction in SEZ. The defense claims lack of reliable evidence against the accused, willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and emphasizes the delay in investigation progress since the accused's detention from 5-10-2016. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the defense seeks bail for the accused.3. Prosecution's Opposition: The prosecution vehemently opposes bail, alleging the accused attempted to evade customs duty exceeding Rs. ten crores and might tamper with evidence if released. Referring to a Central Government notification under the SEZ Act, the prosecution asserts the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has the authority to investigate the matter. Importing explosive items without a valid license is deemed against national interest and security, justifying denial of bail. Legal precedents such as Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI and Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra are cited to support the prosecution's stance.4. Judgment: The court, after considering the evidence and circumstances, finds serious allegations against the accused with substantial evidence. Given the ongoing investigation and the nature of the offences, the court deems it against societal interest to grant bail to the accused. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed, maintaining the accused in custody.