9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h International Airport, Mohali. During the search from his baggage, two gold rods concealed in the cavity of the machine/tractor parts, which he was carrying, was recovered. One gold chain of 150 gms. was also recovered from his possession. There was thus, a total recovery of 3.03 Kgs of gold of which the market value was ascertained at Rs. 83,46,200/-. 3. Statement of Anshul Verma under Section 108 Customs Act disclosed the involvement of other two accused namely Umesh Verma and Prashant Verma. It is a case of conspiracy where 57 Kg. hold had been smuggled, 7 Kg of gold worth market value of 2.01 crores was seized by the Custom Department, while the remaining 50 Kg gold is yet to be recovered. 4. Three persons namely Umesh Verma, Prasha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were able to establish that they were being unnecessarily harassed by the Investigating Agency, there was no case for grant of Anticipatory Bail. Moreover, number of judgments had been relied upon before learned ASJ, which do not find mention in the Order. 8. In Parvinderjit Singh &Anr. vs. State (U.T. Chandigarh) & Anr. 2009 (1) CC Cases (SC) 190, it has been held that the Applicant must show that he has reasons to believe that he would be arrested in a non-bailable offence and the reasons must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere "fear" is not "belief, whereby Anticipatory Bail could have been granted. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Gurbaksh Singh Sibba vs. State (1080) 2 SCC 565. 9. It is further contended that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court 1934; Directorate of Enforcement &Anr. vs. P.V. Prabhakar Rao 1997 SCC (Crl.) 978 (SC); State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu &Anr. 1997 IV SVLR (Crl.) 51; State of Maharashtra vs. Capt. Buddhlokta Subba Rao JT 1989 (4) SC 1; State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal JitamaljiPorwal&Anr. AIR 1987 SC 132; Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 969; Sarbajit Singh &Anr. vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 (SC) and Balchand Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977 Cr.L.J 225 (SC). 12. It is, therefore, contended that the Anticipatory Bail Application was not maintainable in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Hassan Ali decided on 30.11.2011 and other judgment as mentioned above. It is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail was thus, sought. 17. The learned ASJ in his detailed Order dated 31.01.2018 had observed that Kiran Verma was a housewife and Bharat Verma was a young boy who had just completed his studies, whose custodial interrogation was not sought. Furthermore, the learned ASJ considered the plea of DRI that there was no imminent apprehension of arrest. It was mentioned that Smt. Kiran Verma had gone to the office of DRI for release of the case property in compliance of Order dated 10.01.2018 passed by learned CMM, but when she reached there, she was harassed and threatened by DRI officials with dire consequences and only some of the articles were released. 18. Furthermore, the DRI in their reply had stated that summons were repeatedly sent for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
