Manjunath vs D R I, Noida, U P
2015 Latest Caselaw 8649 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                Judgment delivered on : November 20, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 1638/2015
      MANJUNATH
                                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr.Amit Saxena, Advocate


                          versus

      D R I, NOIDA, U P
                                                            ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Mr. P.C. Aggarwal, Advocate


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present bail application under

Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 for seeking bail in a Complaint Case No.02/1/2015 under

Section 132, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act,

1962.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was assisting

the other co-accused in procuring red-sanders in trucks from South

India, storing in their godown at Village Bakhtawarpur, New Delhi

and further illicitly exporting from Delhi Port to Dubai and it was

found that the illicit export of red sanders was attempted in the guise

of genuine exports of 'Acrylic Bath Tubs and Bath Tub Accessories'

under Shipping Bill No.0018327 dated 16.10.2014 to Sharjah, UAI in

Container No. TTNU-3869887/20' under forged documents in the

name of M/s. Aqua Plus Global, Plot No.3, NSEZ, Noida. It is also

alleged that the present petitioner was knowingly indulged in the

illegal export of Red Sanders and he was the active member of the

smuggling racket and is involved in procuring, packing,

transportation, storage, concealing, illegal export and dealing with the

recovered red sander wood which shows that the petitioner is a

member of the racket of international smugglers.

3. The petitioner had also moved the bail application before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CBI-02, New Delhi

District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which was dismissed vide

order dated 06.06.2015, which is impugned in the present petition.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CBI-02, New

Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, keeping in view the

fact that the offence involved the stealing and smuggling of a very

precious and scarce resource of the country and considering the fact

that the operation involving the accused was very large, rejected the

bail application of the petitioner.

4. Mr. Amit Saxena, Advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioner vehemently urged that the learned Special Judge has erred

in rejecting the bail to the petitioner, as the other similarly placed co-

accused - Babu @ Bobby has already been enlarged on bail vide

order dated 14.5.2015 and submits that the petitioner is falsely

implicated in the case as he was forced/coerced to sign some already

written papers, contents of which were not explained to him. It is

further urged that no offence is made out against the present petitioner

under the Customs Act, 1962. Issue of territorial jurisdiction is also

raised by counsel for the petitioner. It is further contended by counsel

for the petitioner that merely a person found in possession of foreign

currency, even with the intention of taking the same out of the

country, if caught at a place other than the customs area, would not be

liable to be punished under the Customs Act, though he may be liable

for violating the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management

Act, 1999. It is further submitted that the petitioner is no more

required for the purpose of investigation; pre-charge evidence is yet to

be completed therefore, trial of the case may take long time as there

are 38 witnesses are to be examined, and petitioner, therefore ought to

be granted bail in the aforesaid case, especially when the other co-

accused persons have already been granted bail by the trial court. It is

further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi

and has family to support therefore there is no likelihood of his

absconding. The petitioner is the only son of his parents who are

suffering with old age ailments and there is no other responsible

person to look after them. According to the counsel for the petitioner,

the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot

be termed as the offence of grave magnitude calling for severest

punishment. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has placed

reliance on Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr. 2000

(2) JCC 302 and Gurcharan Singh & Others v. State, AIR 1978 SC

179. At last, it is contended that the petitioner has clean antecedents

and has roots in the society and there is no apprehension of his

absconding or likelihood that he may tamper with evidence, especially

when the witnesses in the present case are public officers and all the

incriminating material against the petitioner is in possession of the

concerned department. Therefore, the petitioner ought to be granted

bail in the present case.

5. Mr. P.C. Aggarwal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

DRI vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by counsel

for the petitioner.

6. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for DRI. I have

also gone through the judgments relied upon by the petitioner.

7. After considering the contents of the present petition as well as

the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and by learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and on perusal of the

material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the

petitioner does not deserve for grant of concession of bail at this

stage, as:

a. The petitioner is involved in stealing and smuggling of

54.7 Metric Ton Red Sander Wood valued at Rs.23.3

crores, which is a very precious and scarce natural

resource of the country.

b. The writ petition (Crl.) No.1214/2015 filed by Smt.

Bhawani Verma vs. UOI & Anr, in the matter of the

detention order passed against Shri Deepak Verma (co-

accused) under COFEPOSA has already been dismissed

by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated

4.9.2015.

c. The petitioner seems to be an active member of

smuggling racket which deals in smuggling of Red

Sender Wood which is prohibited and recovery of 54.70

MT valued at Rs.23.03 crores has been effected from the

petitioner in the present case.

d. The bail application filed by the co-accused Anil Kumar

and Babu @ Bobby, raising similar contention that 'the

present complaint is not maintainable on the point of

jurisdiction and case under the Customs Act 1962 is not

made out, therefore the applicants are entitled for bail',

but after some arguments, the same had been withdrawn

by the applicants. Accordingly, the same was dismissed

as withdrawn vide order dated 19.3.2015.

e. The petitioner cannot seek parity with the co-accused

Babu @ Bobby, as the bail was granted mainly on the

medical condition of the accused as he was suffering

from TB.

8. It goes without saying that any observation made in the

aforesaid order shall not affect the merits of the case at trial.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail in this case,

at this stage. Accordingly, the present application filed by the

petitioner - Manjunath is dismissed at this stage.

10. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 20, 2015 pkb