Sahilendra Kumar Singh vs Directorate Of Revenue ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 416 Del

JUDGMENT

O.P. Dwivedi, J.

1. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in a case under Sections 132/135 of the Customs Act.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioner is that while working as Engineer Project of M/s NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd., he Along with other co-accused persons had facilitated 12 export consignments valuing US $ 10,14,247 in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and in violation of Import Export Policy Under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Complaint has already been filed in the court in the month of February 2003.

3. Anticipatory Bail is claimed mainly on the ground that all co-accused persons have already been released on regular bail after undergoing varying periods of custody. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused to the prison. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the personal liberty of the individual should not be compromised except for very sound and compelling reasons.

4. Application of the anticipatory bail has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for DRI. He has pointed out that name of the petitioner appeared in the statement of R. Anna Kumar, accused No. 7 and the said statement is admissible in evidence as substantive piece of evidence Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India. Besides, the grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2000 (68) ECC 24 (SC) : 2000 (121) ELT 7 (SC) Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora. Moreover, accused neither participated in the investigation nor he has attended the court even once so far. Proceedings Under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated against him.

5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on record, I think petitioner has failed to make out the good case for exercise discretion Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in his favor. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (Crl) P. 465, the Constitutional Bench had elaborately dealt with the question of grant/refusal of the anticipatory bail. While considering such an application one of the foremost consideration for the court will be to see whether the accusation is malicious, groundless or motivated, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant rather than furthering the ends of justice. At this stage, it is not possible to say that accusation against the petitioner is actuated by malice or motivated with the object of injuring, humiliating him rather than securing the ends of justice. Considerations for grant of regular bail Under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C. are different from those governing the grant/refusal of anticipatory bail Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Moreover, a perusal of LCR shows that petitioner has been avoiding appearance before the court. He did not participate in the investigation and he has not appeared even once although the complaint proceedings are going on for more than last one year. Court has ultimately issued processes Under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C against him. In the case of Jagtar Singh v. Satinder Kaur @ Bhavan Graver and Ors., 2002 (6) Scale 277, the Apex Court has observed that normally, when accused are absconding there is no question of granting anticipatory or regular bail.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the past conduct of the petitioner, I think, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail when the concerned court is already seized the matter and has issued coercive processes against the petitioner to procure his presence.

7. For the foregoing reasons, application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

8. LCR be returned immediately.