VASUDEO KUKREJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Oberoi, counsel for the applicant argued that in view of provisions of Sections 8, 9, 13, 19, 44 and 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA for short), the act which is alleged to have been done by the applicant, would be at the most punishable for a sentence of RI for seven years. He further submitted that the applicant is a person serving in bank having no criminal history and therefore, he would not abscond. Shri Oberoi further pointed that the prosecution allegations show that he attempted or made preparation to commit the offence which has been made punishable u/s 56 of FERA. He prayed that applicant be enlarged on bail in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the matters of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P.- AIR 1978 SC 429 and Bhagirath Judeja v. State of Gujarat - AIR 1984 SC 372.

(2.) SHRI Khan, counsel appearing for non-applicant submitted that applicant has been charged for committing an offence which is punishable under provisions of FERA and the prosecution is in possession of some material to show that prima facie he has committed the offence which is punishable under the relevant provisions of FERA. He further submitted that if the court comes to the conclusion that applicant deserves to be bailed out, some conditions to be imposed on him, directing him to attend the office of Central Excise and Customs, Indore on particular days so as to make him available for the purpose of interrogation whenever required in the course of investigation. He further submitted that sufficient security needs to be taken for ensuring his presence for the trial.

(3.) I perused the case diary for the purpose of ascertaining the seriousness of the part which has been alleged to have been played by the applicant so far as alleged offence or offences are concerned.