Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 484 - HC - CustomsGrant of anticipatory bail - seizure of gold was effected from a shop of petitioner - Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT:- Merely filing of an application by any person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and/or pendency thereof does not mean that the petitioner has been granted any protection by this Court, hence the respondent is not precluded in any manner from taking any action or proceedings in the matters pending before them, as per law until and unless there are specific orders of protection or stay by the Court in favour of a party. It is an admitted case that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.PC before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 5.9.2019. There is no doubt that the anticipatory bail may be granted when there is material on record to show that prosecution was inherently doubtful or where there is material on record to show that there is a possibility of false implication. However, when the element of criminality is involved; the custodial interrogation is required and/or the other aspects and facts are required to be unfolded in investigation, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail - It is a well-settled law that, while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court prima facie has to look into the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the role of the accused. The facts of the case demonstrate that the petitioner, despite having been served with various show cause notices, has preferred not to join the investigation - where the accused has failed to join the investigation on false pretexts or sham/farce excuses despite being given opportunities and/or is not fully cooperating with the investigating agency, the anticipatory bail application of such accused should be rejected, solely on this ground. The facts of the present case demonstrate that the petitioner has failed to join the investigation on sham and farce excuses, hence his conduct itself disentitles him for any relief whatsoever from this Court in the matter - Hence, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusations, the stage of the investigation, the alleged role of the accused and the enormity of financial transactions to be investigated, severity of crime and resultant loss to the public as well as nation; non co-operation of the accused in the investigation and requirement of his custodial interrogation, this Court does not find any merit in the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
|