Ranjan Soni v. Union of India Thru. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Dri) India

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1682 of 2023 Applicant :- Ranjan Soni Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (Dri) India Counsel for Applicant :- Anubhav Awasthi,Vikas Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Vikas Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondent-DRI.

¶2This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant after rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the order dated

17.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Special Judge NDPS Act, Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5808 of 2023, seeking Anticipatory Bail in DRI Case No. 02 of 2023, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, Police Station DRI, District Lucknow.

¶3The aforesaid case has been registered after the officials of DRI apprehended one Sumit Verma while he was travelling in a train and 3000 gms. gold was recovered from him.

¶4In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the aforesaid co-accused Sumit Verma is an employee of the applicant's firm M/s R.A. Mosun Jewelers and, therefore, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. Another partner of the firm Anil Soni has also been made accused in the case and he has filed Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 861 of 2023, wherein he has been granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 17.04.2023.

¶5The respondent-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has filed a counter affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail application and in para 15 thereof, it has been stated that in his voluntary statement dated 28.01.2023 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, accused Sumit Verma had admitted that he does not have any bill/invoice of foreign origin gold. However, the applicant has annexed invoice issued by his own firm "R A Mosun Jwelers, Jaipur' on 24.01.2023 and 26.01.2023 regarding the gold in question.

¶6This indicates that the applicant has wrongly prepared the invoice for taking advantage in the present case.

¶7The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit, wherein this fact has not been disputed that the invoice has been issued from another firm belonging to him and this document has been issued on 31.01.2023, i.e., subsequent to recording of statement of the applicant under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

¶8Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve to be granted discretion of this court by granting pre-arrest bail to him.

¶9The anticipatory bail application is rejected accordingly. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Pradeep/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench