Full Text
JUDGMENT
(1) + CRL.M.C. 5230/2013 DRI Through:
VERSUS
SAURAV CHOPRA Through: (ii)+ CRL.M.C. 5232/2013 DRI Through: Petitioner Mr. Satish Aggarwa! & Mr. Amish Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent Nemo Petitioner Mr. Satish Aggarwal & Mr. Amish versus MAYUR RAJAN.....Respondent Through: Nemo (iii) + CRL.M.C. 5233/2013 & CrLM.A.No.18860/2013 D R I.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwal & Mr. Amish versus KAMAL NEGI Respondent Cr!. M.C. No.523012013 Page 1 CH. M.C. No.523212013 Cr!. M.C. No.523312013 Cr!. M.C. No.523412013 Cr!. M.C. No.526712013 2013:DHC:6904 me (iv) + CRL.M.C. 5234/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.18861/2013 D R I Petitioner versus DALJEET SINGH Respondent IL (v) + CO. M.C. No. 5267/2013 D R I Petitioner versus DALJEET SINGH Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 19.12.2013 In the above-captioned five petitions, impugned order grants bail to respondent-accused persons in case No.34/11/201 3-DZI under Section 132/135 of Customs Act, 1962 registered at Police Station, DRI. In the above-captioned five petitions, petitioner-DRI is seeking cancellation of bail on identical grounds so, these petitions were heard together and are Cr!. M.C. No.523012013 Page 2 Cr!. M.C. No.523212013 1^^ being disposed of by this common order. Impugned order grants bail to respondent/accused- Saurav Chopra while noting that there is no document with DRI to connect accused- Saurav Choprawith consignment in question and so, previous involvement, if any, is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the bail application. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the court concerned is conscious of the fact that in socio-economic offences, a strict approach is to be adopted. Respondent-accused is granted bail by observing that neither recovery nor any document connects respondent- Saurav Chopra with the consignment in question. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon decision of Apex Court in Crl.Appeal No.730/2013 titled YS.Jaganmohan Reddy v. CBI & decision of this Court in Robert Lendi v. The Collector of Customs & Anr. 1987 Cri.L.J.55 to submit that coaccused of respondent-accused has been denied bail by Rajasthan High Court and in view of gravity of the offence, bail granted to respondentaccused deserves to be cancelled. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that retraction of statement under Section 108 of Customs Act by respondent-accused was after one week and thus, it is of no avail. The parameters governing cancellation of bail as reiterated by Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180 are as under:- "The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious Cr!. M.C. No.523012013 Page 3 CH. M.C. No.526712013 infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well-recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail." Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders, the material on record and decisions cited, it becomes quite evident that respondent/accused-Mayur Ranjan has been granted bail by noting that there is no document on record to show that this accused had signed any of the documents for the purpose of storing or exporting red senders to China and respondent-accused-Mayur Ranjan was merely a interpreter to the Chinese buyer or facilitator and there is no allegation that he was partner or had any business relations with his co-accused. Respondent/accused-Kamal Negi has been granted bail vide impugned order while noting that since main accused, who is beneficiary 4 of illegal export has been granted bail so accused-Kamal Negi, who was merely a paid employee of co-accused Vinod Saini deserves bail. Respondent/accused-Daljeet Singh has been granted bail on medical grounds as he was suffering from multiple ailments including serious kidney problem. Respondent-accused- Yodying Jiralertrungrot @ Chan cannot be discriminated merely because he is a foreign national. Merely because respondent/accused-Kamal Negi, was earlier declined bail cannot be a ground to deny bail to him as there was change CH. M.C. No.523012013 Page 4 of circumstances. After bail was declined to respondent-Kamal Negi, it was granted to co-accused Daijeet Singh and so the Court concerned was justified in subsequently granting bail to respondent-accused-Kamal Negi. Pertinently, respondent! accused-Daljeet Singh has been granted bail not on merits but on medical grounds. Simply because bail has been declined by the Rajasthan High Court to accused Anil Gadodia cannot be a ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent/accused persons as the role of P each accused is to be considered in the facts of the case in hand. In fact bail has been granted to respondent/accused persons due to change in circumstances while applying the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, impugned orders granting bail to respondent-accused persons cannot be termed to be perverse. Resultantly, the above-captioned five petitions and applications are dismissed. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge DECEMBER 19, 2013 vn Ir