SANJAY JOLLY Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal miscellaneous application for anticipatory bail, under Section 438, Cr. P. C. , arises out of Customs Case DRIF No. 23/157/98-D 24 for offence under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1962"), regarding which, Bail Application No. 2643/2000 has been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 23. 12. 2000.

(2.) IT is borne out from perusal of the record that the accused applicant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Livia Exports, a company engaged in exporting high precision plastic drivers and gasket sets, from Jaipur. IT is alleged that the export business was done by the aforesaid company, in April to May, 1997 and in December, 1998. , whereas, it is alleged by Customs Department that the shipping bills for relevant export period contained false information, leading to fraudulent claim of drawback and benefits under DEPB Scheme to the tune of Rs. 1. 46 crores in respect of one consignment alone, exported recently through ICD, Jaipur and intercepted at Mumbai. The accused applicant is required to join the investigation, which he is deliberately and willfully avoiding. IT is further alleged by the Customs Department that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438, Cr. P. C. , as he is avoiding compliance of summons, issued by Customs Department and the department has no option, but to file a complaint, for non-compliance of summons against the accused applicant, for offences punishable under Sections 172, 174 and 175, IPC, before ACMM, New Delhi. After hearing, the court took cognizance and it summoned the petitioner for 31. 5. 99. In spite of various proceedings, the accused applicant is not appearing before the court of ACMM, New Delhi. In the aforesaid case, the court passed orders for issuance of non-bailable warrant, but when it resulted into fiasco, the court has issued process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C.

(3.) WITHOUT exploring the merit of the two versions, putforth before me in the present case, taking into account, the accusations made against the accused applicant of and the nature of evidence, collected by the Investigating Officer, in support of such accusation, I am not persuaded to enlarge the accused applicant on pre- arrest bail. Investigation in economic offences, involving crores of rupees, could not be pushed under the carpet, when this Court is satisfied that the accused applicant is adopting delaying tactics in conclusion of investigation. At this juncture, I may hasten to observe that from the aforesaid observations, no party should have an impression that his version has been disbelieved by this Court, at the stage of refusing anticipatory bail. It is reiterated that without exploring the merit of the two versions, putforth before me, by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused applicant and the learned counsel, appearing on behalf the Customs Department, after perusal of the original record, produced before me by the Customs Department, I am prima facie satisfied that the accused applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, due to stalling the investigation in the present case, without any reasonable cause and compelling the department to file a complaint under Sections 172, 174 and 175, IPC. The delaying tactics adopted by the accused applicant is writ large from perusal of steps taken by ACMM, New Delhi, in complaint filed against him, under Sections 172, 174 and 175, IPC.