ASSISTANT DIRECTOR D AND E Vs. NATHMAL BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Senior Commercial Manager of "M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Private Limited" and he is also a Director of another firm named "M/s. Deep Kamal Sentix Limited". It is the contention of petitioner that he is a nominal Director of the second firm. Both the firms are based at Hyderabad. The Company Director Mr. Piyush looks after the day to day affairs of the second firm. It is then submitted that petitioner is originally resident of Bombay and because of his bad health he had gone to Bombay in second week of February of this year. He was allegedly on leave in those days. When he was about to return back to Hyderabad, some time in August or beginning of September, 1996 he read a news item in some newspaper stating that the Managing Director of one Golden Tobacco Company named Sri J. P. Khaitan was arrested. He therefore, rushed back to Hyderabad and noticed outside his residential premises a summons having been affixed some time in February, 1996 for his appearance before the respondent-authority. He also learnt on enquiry that a search was made in the premises of M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Private Limited. Some documents were seized and a case was registered by the respondent. The petitioner contends that his employer as well as the Managing Director Sri Gowri Shankar Modi were arrested but later released on bail. The petitioner being an employee and summons having been issued to him thought himself only to be a witness but later on he came to know that though the respondent authority calls the persons for interrogation by issuing summons, such persons are later arrested. He therefore, apprehends reasonably that he would be arrested in the case and therefore, filed this anticipatory bail petition. He says that he would not avoid any interrogation and that he could not comply the summons affixed on his residence because he was not in Hyderabad in those days. Lastly it is urged that he is an old man of 63 years and is sick. According to him most of the investigation is already over and the petitioner is willing to make information available as much as his capacity permits. His petition for anticipatory bail may be accepted is his ultimate prayer.

(2.) The petition is opposed by the respondent by filing a counter. It is pointed out that search operation at the residence of the Managing Director Sri G. S. Modi of M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Pvt. Ltd. in the last week of February resulted in recovery of several incriminating documents and material disclosing removal of Shells and Slides stealthily. Enquiries have revealed that the petitioner had written some of the incriminating documents and had made entries for purposes of evading the dues by the firm. It is next stated that though summons were pasted on the residence of the petitioner, he did not appear. When the Officers of respondent visited the residence of the petitioner in the end of March, 1996, his residence was found locked. Another summons was issued on 3-4-1996 and was pasted on the residential premises of the petitioner. On 24-6-1996 again summons was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 4-7-1996. However, the said summons was returned with postal endorsement that petitioner was not available. It is alleged that Mr. G. S. Modi, the Managing Director did not give any information about leave or whereabouts of the petitioner. For all these reasons, it is alleged that the petitioner was absconding and was not willing to co-operate with the respondent-Investigating agency. It is also urged that the investigation conducted and statements recorded during the investigation has revealed that the petitioner was a party to all the unlawful acts done for evading the lawful dues. Next it is contended that petitioner was, in absence of Sri Modi, the person-incharge of the conduct of the firm's business. The investigations are still pending against the firm and the petitioner. A decision can be taken only after whole investigation is over as to whether the petitioner is to be arrested or not and, the petitioner has come to the Court though there is no reasonable apprehension of his arrest at this stage. It is reiterated that petitioner was absconding and now he is coming before the Court for seeking anticipatory bail. It is apprehended by the respondent that petitioner may tamper with the further enquiry and therefore, granting anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to jeopardize the course of enquiry and investigation. According to the respondent about fifteen crores of rupees worth of duty has been evaded by the firm 'Deccan Tobacco Processors Pvt. Ltd.'. The petitioner has a close nexus being the Senior Commercial Manager with the Directors of the Company. For all these reasons, it is contended that the bail petition be rejected.

(3.) It may be pointed out that interim anticipatory bail was granted earlier on 13-9-1996 on certain conditions.