Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Manj Garg

And r CRL.M.C. 374ll20l0
DIRE,C'|ORATE,OFREVE,NUEINTELLIGENCE....' Petitioner
Through: Mr.Satish Aggarwala' Adv'
VCTSUS
SAROJ GARG..... ResPondent
'through: Mr'Naveen Malhotra' Adv'
AND r CRL.M.C.3742l20l0
DIRECTOATE, OF RE,VENUE INTE,LLIGENC}] ..... Petitioner
'l hroueh: Mr'Satish Aggarwala' Adv'
2013:DHC:6853
VETSUS
VIPIN GARG .... ResPondent
Through: Mr'Naveen Malhotra' Adv'

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
,/o 22.02.2013
Bythiscommonorderlproposetodisposeofthreepetitionsfiledby thcpetitionerunderSection4S2Cr,P.Ctochallengethethreeseparate orderspassedbyLd.ACMMtherebywaivingtheconditionimposedupon the respondent/accused of taking prior permission of the court to visit abroad at rhe time of his granting bail. crl'M.c l77gl20l0 has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated lg.2-2010 while crl'M'C'374112010 &'
Crl'M.C.3l42lzhavebeenfiledimpugningtheorderdated1l7.4.20|0.Since identicalordershavebeenpassedbythel-d.ACMMinallthesethree petitions, these petitions are being disposed of by a common order'
Assailingtheseorders,counselforthepetitionerarguedthatLd.
ACMM has no iurisdiction to waive the bail condition as after passing an or<leronthebailapplicationoftherespondentthecourtbecomefunctus off-rcio. Counsel further submits that petitioner has no obiection on the
(

respondent going abroad but as per the bail conditions' the respondent ts requiredtoobtainpriorpermissionofthecourttotravelabroadand imposition of such a condition is in the interest of a fair investigation' To support his argument counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated29.|.20|0passedbythiscourtincriminalM.A.No.g846108wherein accused was permitted to go abroad subject to the fulfllment of certain conditions.
'fhese petitions have been strongly opposed by counsel for the respondent.Counselsubmitsthatrespondentwasillegallyarrestedbythe otficials of DRI for the offences punishable under Section 132 & 135 of the custom Act, 1962 and was granted bail' counsel submits that till date no complaint has been filed by the petitioner and because of the said stringent bailconditionimposedbythecourt,hewasbeingsubiectedtounnecessary harassment of seeking permission liom the court to visit abroad' counsel also submits that offences under the Customs Act are bailable off-ences and no such harsh condition can be imposed on the respondent for bailable offences.
I have heard counsel for the parties
Thepetitionerhasnotyetfiledacomplaintagainsttheseaccused
) a persons.Theseaccusedpersonswereaffestedbytheoff]cialsofDRIon
23.g.2005&|g'T.2205andtheyweregrantedbailbyorderdatedlg.2.20]l0
& 17.4.20r0. The apprehension raised by the petitioner is that respondents may flee away from the course of justice and not join the investigation as and when they are so required to join'
In such a scenario, it would be suffice to direct that these respondents shall join the investigation as and when required by the petitioner in relation to the said case. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to seek revival of the said bail condition after filing of the complaint lchatge sheet against the respondents and in such an eventuality, the Trial court would be at liberty to takeaviewonthedesirabilityoftherevivalofsuchacondition. withtheabovedirectionthepresentpetitionsaredisposedof-'
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FEBRUARY 22,2013 g b
,