2024 (5) TMI 1353 - HC - Customs

Seeking Grant of Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 CrPC - Smuggling - Seizure and Recovery of Gold of foreign origin and Cash - Non-cooperation and Summons by DRI - Applicant s Business and Legitimacy of Seized Items - Economic Offence and Quantum Involved - HELD THAT - There is also no statement/documents brought on record to indicate that two other co-accused from whom the cash and jewellery/gold pieces were recovered are their regular employees. Mere random entries into the bank account statements does not prima-facie satisfy this Court. Under what circumstances the goods were sold and cash has been received is also not mentioned except the bland submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant without any corresponding documents. The applicant claimed ownership of M/s. Ram Laxman Company dealing in gold pieces and ornaments and submitted GST invoices and stock reports. However the Court found the documents insufficient to prove the legitimacy of the seized items and the applicant s proprietary rights over the firms. Merely the submission that the seized items belong to the applicant and his firm and he is ready to pay the penalties and fee does not absolve the applicant from explaining with particularity regarding the huge quantum of cash gold and ornaments record and from which firm and to whom the sales have been made and from whom the money has been received. There is apparently no explanation. Moreover the summons issued by the DRI have not been responded by the applicant and he has not cooperated nor he appeared to get his statement recorded. Offence is punishable with maximum sentence of seven years - It will be relevant to notice that this is an economic offence. Thus in absence of any material brought on record by the applicant the quantum involved is such that this Court is unable to persuade itself to grant the anticipatory bail. Accordingly the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Seizure and Recovery of Gold and Cash
3. Applicant's Business and Legitimacy of Seized Items
4. Non-cooperation and Summons by DRI
5. Economic Offence and Quantum Involved

Summary:

1. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C.:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in DRI Case No.6/2024 u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, allowing the applicant to seek regular bail.

2. Seizure and Recovery of Gold and Cash:
DRI intercepted two co-accused on 20.02.2024, recovering 558.900 grams of gold of foreign origin and Rs. 3,29,25,000/- in cash. Follow-up searches led to additional recoveries of 7700.000 grams and 26500.000 grams of gold, valued at Rs. 3,69,60,000/- and Rs. 12,42,62,400/- respectively, along with more cash.

3. Applicant's Business and Legitimacy of Seized Items:
The applicant claimed ownership of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company, dealing in gold pieces and ornaments, and submitted GST invoices and stock reports. However, the Court found the documents insufficient to prove the legitimacy of the seized items and the applicant's proprietary rights over the firms.

4. Non-cooperation and Summons by DRI:
The applicant did not cooperate with the DRI and failed to respond to summons for recording statements. The Court noted the lack of satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash and the legitimacy of the transactions.

5. Economic Offence and Quantum Involved:
The Court emphasized the economic nature of the offence and the significant quantum involved. The applicant's failure to provide detailed explanations and supporting documents led to the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.