2021 (8) TMI 91 - HC - Customs

Petition for Anticipatory Bail Denied Due to Lack of Transparency & Potential Interference

Nazir Hussain Versus The Sr. Intelligence Officer Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch Custom House, Chennai

The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, citing the petitioner's lack of transparency, incomplete cooperation, and concerns about potential ... Seeking enlargement on anticipatory bail - smuggling - export of Red Sanders Logs of various grades in the guise of cobble stones - petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not aware of the stuffing of the red sanders logs along with the cobble stones and that he had signed in the shipping bills purely on the basis of the trust, which he reposed in the third party - HELD THAT:- It is the admitted case of the petitioner even that he had signed the shipping bills relating to the shipment of cobble stones, for which stuffing of the same into the container was done by a third party. However, it is to be pointed out that the petitioner has not divulged the name of the third party, who had done the stuffing. The shipping bills were, thereafter, collected by the petitioner for submission once the container was sealed by the CFS - Opening of the container in the presence of the CFS revealed the red sanders logs, which were found stuffed along with the cobble stones. It is not in dispute that the owner of the materials, which were found in the container, as per the shipping bills, is the petitioner. However, the only claim of the petitioner is that he had signed the shipping bills, but was not aware of what was stuffed inside the container by the stuffing agent and he was under the premise that the stuff inside the container was cobble stones. If the stand of the petitioner that he is in no way connected with the prohibited seized material, the course that is open to the petitioner is to subject himself for enquiry and give all the details before the respondent for them to find out the truth of the matter and nab the culprit. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner having not revealed any information about the said Penchiliah, who is said to be the source of the red sanders logs, the respondent must conduct a full fledged investigation to find out the real culprit in the issue and at this point of time, allowing the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail, would work hardship to the respondent in conducting the investigation as the interference by the petitioner in the investigation by the respondent cannot be ruled out. Therefore, acceding to the request of the petitioner for enlarging him on anticipatory bail at this point of time would be detrimental to the investigative process, this Court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner. Petition dismissed. Issues:Enlargement on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent.Analysis:The petitioner, an exporter of cobble stones, filed shipping bills for export through a third party who stuffed the container with red sanders logs and cobble stones without petitioner's knowledge. The container was detained by the respondent, revealing the logs. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he signed the bills based on trust. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail due to fear of arrest during the pandemic.The petitioner's counsel argued the petitioner's cooperation if directed by the court. The respondent contended the logs were prohibited goods, the petitioner avoided summons, and was part of a smuggling racket. The petitioner's non-disclosure of details raised suspicion. The petitioner's reluctance to cooperate and seek legal advice indicated guilt, as per the respondent.The court noted the petitioner's admission of signing bills without knowing the contents. The petitioner's failure to disclose the third party's identity and lack of full cooperation in the enquiry cast doubt on innocence. The respondent's claim of petitioner's involvement in smuggling, based on non-disclosure of crucial details, was considered. The petitioner's vague responses and failure to provide concrete information during the enquiry were highlighted.The court emphasized the petitioner's incomplete cooperation, especially regarding the source of the logs. Granting anticipatory bail could hinder the investigation. The petitioner's lack of transparency and cooperation raised concerns about interference in the investigative process. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, citing the need for a thorough investigation without hindrance.