Arun Khanna vs Director General Of Central ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1031 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       Bail Application No.1273/2008

%                        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 reported               NO
       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 petition

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 parties, the

petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 23rd June,

2008 at 3 PM 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 the court and that the petitioner will continue to appear

as and when required by the respondent and cooperate in the

investigation. While granting the interim anticipatory bail, the

petitioner also undertook to deposit a sum of Rs.50.00 lakh with the

Central Excise Commissionerate, Meerut - I, within four weeks from the

date of order.

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) v. 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. v. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, 1997

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

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

AIR 1980 SC 1632.

Learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that as per the

information received by him from the Directorate, the petitioner has

deposited a sum of Rs.50.00 lakh with Central Excise Commissionerate,

Meerut-I, in compliance with the order dated 10th June, 2008. It is also

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 these 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 the Court. Even though the respondent has stated that

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

appear as when directed by the respondent, in case the respondent

requires the presence of the petitioner for any further investigation.

With these directions, the petition is allowed.

Dasti.

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