Mohd. Amin General vs D.G. Of Anti Evasion
2002 Latest Caselaw 887 Del

ORDER

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This petitioner is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 22.5.2002 whereby the learned Judge has deemed it appropriate not to admit the petitioner on bail. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already incarcerated for nearly 42 days. He submits that the raid conducted was on 27.12.2002 (sic) and he has been joining investigation time and again till he was arrested on 18.4.2002. He submits that no further recovery is required to be made from him. He is not required for further investigation. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that enormous amount of evasion of duty has already been detected and investigation is in progress. It is in the final stage and is likely to be completed shortly. He draws my attention to a counter-affidavit where it is mentioned that various people who have been issued summons have not yet joined investigation and, therefore, submits that the continued incarceration of the petitioner is essential.

2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and given my careful attention to the contentions raised by them I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in continuing further incarceration of the petitioner and that there is no likelihood of him tampering with the evidence or hampering the investigation since there is no allegation so far that he has done such a thing while in custody. The apprehension of the Investigating agency appears to be imaginary. What this Court is required to weigh is right of liberty of a citizen qua the right of the department to investigate. While balancing such a right it must be taken into consideration that the bail is right while incarceration an exception. However, if the investigation were to show that enlarging the petitioner on bail would hamper the investigation, certainly, that deserves attention of the court but if it is hollow and general statement it deserves to be rejected.

3. In this view of the matter, I direct that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,00,000 (rupees twenty five lakhs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the ACMM. He would not leave the country without permission of the court. He would surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer and shall not cause any impediment in the investigation nor shall he tamper with the witnesses. However, it shall be open to the prosecution to obtain any modification of this order from the appropriate court if the need should so arise.

4. Crl. M(M) 1694/2002 is disposed of.