Gopal Aggarwal v. Director of Revenue Intelligence

ORDER

14.03.2014 Cri.MA. No.·15147 of 2013 (seeking modification of order dated 21st November 2008) Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to approach the learned trial Court in accordance with law. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. MARCH 14, 2014 Rk S.MURALIDHAR, J

% 21.11.2008 Present: Mr. Pradeep Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Aggarwala for the respondent. +Cri.M.A. No. 13623/2008 * subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. Bail Appln. No. 2355/2008 Notice. Mr. Satish Aggarwala accepts notice. Counsel states that he has already flied the advance reply. to the present bail application and he shall address the arguments based on the said reply . .!..¢. By way of this application moved under Section the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that already this Court has granted bail to one Mr. Vineet Gupta vide orders ' dated 6th November, 2008 and the case of the present petitioner is also similar to that of Mr. Vineet Gupta except the fact that Mr. Vineet Gupta sought regular bail and in this case the Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ., . ' petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent except the fact that m the case of Vineet Gupta goods were in the custody of Department while in this case goods were never seized and, therefore, there is no question of their release as the goods were imported in the year 2007 and the enquiry was initiated in the year 2008. Mr. Pradeep Jain counsel submits that in any case it can not be denied that the petitioner had taken the delivery of the goods after the payment of customs duty as per law. Another aspect canvassed by Mr. Satish Aggarwala, counsel appearing for the respondent is that Vineet Gupta remained in judicial custody for about more than one month while the present petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail and he has been absconding despite 13 notices sent under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the Department. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, co1:1nsel for the respondent also submits that complaint against the petitioner has separately been filed before ACMM, Delhi on 8.10.2008 for non-compliance of the summons. Mr. Satish Aggarwala has further heavily placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court Crl. A. No. 1575/2008 titled Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal r I etc. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that in the facts before the Apex Court also the respondent in that case did not join the investigation despite various summons issued against them by the Department and the Apex Court deprecated the order passed by the lower Court granting anticipatory in such like cases. Counsel appearing for the respondent has also Q . . placed reliance on another judgment of the Aj)ex Court reported Enforcement Officer, TED, Bombay vs Bher Chand Tikaji Bora - 2000 (121) ELT 7 (SC) in support of his proposition that anticipatory bail should not be granted in the case of white · collar criminals like the respondent against whom the allegation is that he has violated the provisions of the Fox:eign Exchange Regulation Act and such a criminal is a menace to the society therefore, unless he alleges and establishes in the materials 4'l . that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the investigating agency, the Court would not be justified in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Counsel appearing for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court · Bail application No. 820/2007 titled Lalit · Goel vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Delhi-1) where the regular bail / of the accused was rejected by this Court. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that in the said . case the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution for violating Section 135 of the Customs Act where the punishment is only three years whereas in the present case the punishment is seven years and the said bail matter was a regular bail unlike in the present case. ·C Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on the judgments reported Indeijeet Nagpal vs Directorate of Revenue Inte