Arun Khanna vs Director General Of Central ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1027 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       Bail Application No.1274/2008

%                       Date of Decision : 15.07.2008



Arun Khanna                                      ....... Petitioner
                     Through:   Mr.Arun Bhardwaj and Mr.R.K. Chadha,
                                Sr. Advocates with Mr.Ramakant Gaur
                                and Mr.Sandeep Banga, Advocates for
                                the petitioner.

                                     Versus

Director General of Central Excise Intelligence ......... Respondent
                  Through : Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the
                              respondent.


CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

    1. Whether reporters of Local papers may             YES
       be allowed to see the judgment?
    2. To be referred to the reporter or not?            NO
    3. Whether the judgment should be                    NO
       reported in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail by this petition under

Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the event of his

arrest in respect of Case No. 107/INT/DGCEI/HQ/2007.

The petitioner has contended that he is an active Director

in M/s.Reema Steels Pvt. Ltd., which company is manufacturing and

trading in steel since July 2005. The company of the petitioner is

stated to have supplied material/steel ingots to M/s Parmarth Iron

Private Limited, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, which is also engaged in

manufacturing and trading in steel rods.

In July 2007, a raid was conducted by the officers of

DGCEI at the premises of M/s Parmarth Steel Pvt. Ltd. and M/s

Parmath Iron Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that some incriminating documents

were found leading to a raid on the premises of the company of the

petitioner as it was one of the suppliers of M/s Parmarth Steel Pvt. Ltd.

The plea of the petitioner is that he was summoned by

notice dated 10th July, 2007 as a witness in the investigation against

M/s Parmarth Steel Pvt. Ltd., Bijnor, U.P., and he cooperated and

appeared before DGCEI officers in response to the summons under

Section 14 of Central Excise Act and supplied all the documents

required by the investigating officer.

The petitioner further asserted that the Accountant, Shri

Harish Bhardwaj, was forced to write the statement to implicate the

Directors of Parmarth Group. The officials of DGCEI also arrested the

Directors of M/s.Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. and the representatives of

petitioner were also threatened with dire consequences in case the

petitioner does not give any statement against M/s Parmarth Iron Pvt.

Ltd.

The petitioner has contended that he was mechanically

summoned by notices dated 8th August, 2007; 8th October, 2007; 18th

October, 2007; 26th October, 2007; 2nd November, 2007; 14th November,

2007 and 12th December, 2007. The petitioner's assertion is that he

duly cooperated though he could not appear in the beginning on

account of ill health and medical reasons. The petitioner also filed a

writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, however, the petition

was dismissed by order dated 11th December, 2007. The application for

review of the order dated 11th December, 2007 for expunging some of

the remarks made in the said order dated 11th December, 2007 is still

stated to be pending.

The apprehension of the petitioner which is basis for this

present petition, according to him, is that though he has given the

statement and produced whatsoever was required off him, the

respondents are still giving notices and are coercing to give statement

against M/s Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner also emphasized on

the fact that the Directors of M/s Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd., namely, Shri

Raj Kamal Aggarwal and Lalit Aggarwal have already been granted bail

in the case of evasion of excise duty to the extent of Rs.3.00 crores and

another accused having similar allegations against him, namely,

Mr.Navneet Jain has been granted bail under Section 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by order

dated 18th January, 2008.

After the petitioner filed the present petition, by an interim

order dated 10th June, 2008 after hearing the counsel for the

respondent, the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent

on 23rd June, 2008 at 11 AM and on every day thereafter as directed by

the respondent. An interim anticipatory bail was also granted to the

petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh

with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of

respondent/DGCEI and subject to further conditions that the petitioner

surrenders his passport which will be kept in the custody of the

respondent and that the petitioner will not travel abroad without prior

permission of this court and that the petitioner will continue to appear

as and when required by the respondent and cooperate in the

investigation.

The bail application of the petitioner has been opposed by

the respondent mainly on the ground of the seriousness of the offence,

though admitting that the petitioner attended the office of the

respondent on 23rd June, 2008 and thereafter on 2nd July, 2008 as per

order dated 10th June, 2008 and his statement has been recorded and

the presence of the petitioner is no more required by the respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on

Enforcement Officer, TED, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, 2000

(121) ELT 7 (SC); Dukhishyam Benupani, Director, Enforcement

Directorate (FERA) Vs Arun Kumar Bajoria, 1998 Crl.L.J. 841 (SC);

K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., AIR 1998 Supreme

Court 1934; Directorate of Enforcement & anr. Vs P.V.Prabhakar Rao,

1997 SCC (Crl) 978 (SC); Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibba & ors. Vs State of

Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sarbajit Singh & anr. Vs State of Punjab,

AIR 1980 SC 1632.

Learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that after

the order dated 10th June, 2008, the petitioner has cooperated with the

respondent and his statement has been recorded and he is no more

required. This is also admitted that the petitioner has surrendered his

passport.

This is not disputed that the seriousness of the offence

alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is the same as in the

case of other Directors of the firm M/s.Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd., Bijnor,

Uttar Pradesh, who have been granted anticipatory bail which fact has

not been controverted by the respondent. After the grant of interim

anticipatory bail, the petitioner has not exploited the situation nor has

violated the terms of grant of interim anticipatory bail in any manner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present

case, the judgments relied on by the respondent are apparently

distinguishable as they do not lay down that in appropriate cases the

anticipatory bail cannot be granted considering facts and circumstances

of the case.

In the totality of facts and circumstances and considering

various factors which are material for grant of anticipatory bail, it is

apparent that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail and the

order granting interim anticipatory bail is liable to be confirmed.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. In the

event of arrest of the petitioner, he be released on bail on his furnishing

a personal bond of Rs.1.00 lakh with one surety of the like amount to

the satisfaction on respondent/DGCEI.

The petitioner has already surrendered his passport,

however, the petitioner will not travel abroad without the prior

permission of this Court. Even though the respondent has stated that

the petitioner is no more required for investigation, the petitioner will

appear in case the respondent requires the presence of the petitioner for

any further investigation.

With these directions, the petition is allowed.

Dasti.

July 15th , 2008                                     ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'