ANIL JAIN Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner is that he knowingly purchased dry fruits from one Arun Gupta with the express knowledge that Arun Gupta had imported the same without payment of appropriate customs duty. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the case that is being set up is under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He submitted that the petitioner was first interrogated on 30.3.2006 when the petitioner gave the statement that he had purchased 30 MTs of dry fruits from the said Arun Gupta. He further had clearly stated that he had no knowledge that the goods which had been sold to him were non-duty paid goods. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that even today the petitioner's stands by the statement recorded on 30.3.2006. He further submitted that on 4.4.2006 the petitioner was picked up from his residence by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRI') and were taken to their office at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi where he was kept under detention till 5.4.2006 when he was produced before the Duty Magistrate for the purposes of remand. It is stated by him that the petitioner was tortured and harassed. His statement dated 5.4.2006 was extracted from him wherein he is said to have admitted that the extent of goods purchased from the said Arun Gupta was 400 MTs of dry fruits. He argued on merits also stating that the petitioner could not be covered under Sections 132 and 135 of the Act. However all these facts have been disputed by Mr. Satish Aggarwal who appears on behalf of the DRI. He submits that the statement dated 5.4.2006 was voluntarily given by the petitioner and that he was not under detention as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that the evasion of custom duty by the petitioner and the co-accused was to the extent of Rs. 7 crores. He opposed the grant of bail on two counts i.e., the investigation is still pending as also on the ground of seriousness of the offence.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that apart from merits of the case, the petitioner has been in custody, even if the version of the prosecution is to be taken, with effect from 5.4.2006. During this period, no questions whatsoever have been put to the petitioner. The statements that were to be recorded have already been recorded. Custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, therefore, his detention would be of no consequence. Insofar as the investigation is concerned, he submitted that the petitioner would be fully ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when directed by them. He submitted that the petitioner and his family have been doing the business in dry fruits since over 50 years. The petitioner himself is in the wholesale trade of dry fruits since December, 2005, independent from his family. The petitioner is 32 years of age. He has a wife and two children who are all residing in Delhi. His children go to school in Delhi. The petitioner is an Income Tax Assessee. The petitioner has well established roots in society and there is no apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from justice, if bail is granted.

(3.) Without going into merits of the matter, and it is not necessary for me to do so, I find that for the purpose of bail what is necessary is for the Court to ascertain as to whether the person seeking bail is likely to flee from justice if he is granted bail; the Court should negate the possibly of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing any witnesses; the nature of the alleged offence is also some times taken into account particularly when it is heinous crime such as rape or murder. In the present case, I find that the petitioner has already been in the judicial custody for over a month and during this period of custody, no question has been put to him, it is apparent that custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. It is also clear that the petitioner has roots in society and is not likely to flee from justice if bail is granted.