Delhi High Court
Directorate General Of Central ... vs Vinod Kumar Gupta on 26 July, 2018
$~17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 26th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1059/2016 and Crl. M.A. 4548/2016
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE
INTELLIGENCE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Agarwala, Advocate
versus
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Jain and Mr.
Shubhankar Jha, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER
% 26.07.2018
1. On the basis of some information followed by certain
searches carried out by the officials of the petitioner in October
2015, a case of suspected violation of the Central Excise Act,
1944 was taken up for investigation. In the course of the said
probe, certain persons connected with the companies
involvement of which was suspected were called for inquiries.
It is the case of the petitioner that material came to light that
certain bogus firms were operating wherein certain accounts
were being used in the name of dummy parties for fraudulent
transactions leading to false claims of CENVAT credit being
claimed, such facts indicating violation of the provisions of
Central Excise Act, 1944, meriting, inter alia, criminal action,
the offences concededly being cognizable and non-bailable.
The role of the respondent also came under scrutiny in the said
matter and he was called for inquiry.
2. Against this backdrop, the respondent moved an
application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C), it being bail application
no.5495/2015. The Additional Sessions Judge, after calling for
the response of the petitioner and hearing both sides, passed a
detailed order on 07.01.2016 directing that in the event of he
being arrested, the respondent shall stand released on bail
subject to certain conditions which were specified, they
inclusive of the respondent being obliged to cooperate with the
inquiry and to join it as and when called upon to do so and at
the same time he not leaving India without prior permission of
the trial court and towards that end he to surrender his passport.
3. The present petition was filed in March 2016 questioning
the legality and propriety of the said order of anticipatory bail.
It has been pending for the last almost two and half years.
4. When the counsel for the petitioner was called upon to
make his submissions, his only argument was that there was no
move initiated to put the respondent under arrest and, therefore,
the exercise of jurisdiction by the Sessions court under Section
438 Cr. PC was bad in law. The counsel was asked by the court
as to what is the status of the investigation of the case in
question. He was also asked to ascertain as to what evidence
against the respondent as to his involvement or complicity had
come up in the investigation that has been undertaken thus far.
He was clueless and submitted that he has not been updated.
On his request, he was called upon to ascertain the facts and the
present status of the investigation. He returned at 4.00 p.m. to
inform the court that the investigation was still incomplete. He
would not clarify if any incriminating evidence had been
gathered during the probe conducted so far showing the
complicity of the respondent in the crimes under such probe,
particularly such evidence as may have escaped the notice of
the Sessions court. His only insistence is that the crime is
serious and the respondent is a suspect.
5. In the considered view of this court, such non-serious
pursuit of the matter cannot take the petitioner anywhere. The
impugned order was passed by the court of Sessions after taking
into account the available material. The petition cannot
continue to hang like a democle's sword over the head of the
respondent indefinitely. The petitioner would have the liberty
to oppose the grant of regular bail to the respondent in the event
of a case being presented upon conclusion of the investigation
for cognizance thereupon to be taken up by the competent court
it leading to issuance of the process against the respondents.
6. With these observations, the petition and the application
filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J
JULY 26, 2018
yg
