Directorate Of Revenue ... vs Heera Singh & Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 2345 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of Decision: March 19, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 265/2014
      DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
                                                                 ..... Petitioner
                              Through:       Mr. Satish Aggarwala &
                                             Mr. Amish Aggarwala, Advocates

                              versus

      HEERA SINGH & OTHERS                                 ..... Respondents
                   Through:                  Ms. Sangeeta Bhyana, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                   JUDGMENT

%                    (ORAL)

      Impugned        order    of      8th   January,   2013   grants   bail   to

respondents/accused while relying upon order of 10 th October, 2013 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Crl.M.Bail. Application No.28353 of 2013, Harsih Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & anr.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that reliance placed upon the aforesaid order is misplaced and the fact of recovery of gold weighing 2003 grams from the four belt buckles concealed in the hand baggage has not been taken into consideration and so, the bail granted to the accused is unwarranted.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has drawn the attention of this Court to the 'Application for Judicial Remand' (Annexure-A) wherein there is a reference of four gold belt buckles and it is submitted

Crl.M.C.No.265/2014 Page 1 that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, as it is noted therein that antecedents of respondents/accused are clean and the recovery from each of the accused persons is valued less than `50,00,000/-

The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for respondents is strongly refuted by learned counsel for petitioner who submits that respondents 2 and 3 were the carriers of respondent No.1 and so, the entire recovery is attributable to respondent No.1 from whom there was a seizure of `1,25,00,000/- odd being the sale proceeds of the smuggled gold.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the order of 10th October, 2013 of the Allahabad High Court, I find that there exists no ground for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents/accused, as the bail has been granted to respondents/accused by not solely relying upon Allahabad High Court's Order in Harish Kumar (Supra) but on the facts of the instant case. It needs no clarification that any observation made in Harish Kumar (supra) will not be taken into consideration by the trial court while dealing with this case on merits, as each case has to be decided on its own facts.

This petition is disposed of while not commenting on the merits of the case.

                                                       (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                         JUDGE

MARCH 19, 2015
r


Crl.M.C.No.265/2014                                                 Page 2