Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K. SHALI, J.
ROHIT SAKHUJA - Petitioner
Versus
STATE & ANR. - Respondents
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1736/2012
Decided on : 5th December, 2012
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Mr. Dheeraj, Mr. Ankit and Mr. S. Pandey, Advocates.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for DRI.
The enormity and gravity of the offence, along with the need for custodial interrogation to probe a larger conspiracy, justified the denial of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Forgery - Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC - Customs Act - Section 108 - 2011 X AD (S.C.) 417 - Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors; (2011) 1 SCC 694 - Monika Singh vs. State - Om Prakash & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. - [Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC, Section 108 of the Customs Act, 2011 X AD (S.C.) 417, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors; (2011) 1 SCC 694, Monika Singh vs. State]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail in a case involving the illegal removal of goods from the custody of CONCOR on the basis of forged documents. The goods were worth over `10 crores and included restricted items. The petitioner was previously on bail in a complaint case under the Customs Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the anticipatory bail application, stating that the gravity of the offence and the need for custodial interrogation to probe the larger conspiracy involving officials of the Customs Department warranted denial of bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving forgery and illegal removal of goods from the custody of the Customs Authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enormity and gravity of the offence, along with the need for custodial interrogation to probe a larger conspiracy, justified the denial of anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected.
V.K. SHALI, J.
Crl. M.A. No.19546/2012 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to the deficiency being rectified.
2. The application stands disposed of. Bail Application No.1736/2012
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.254/2012, under Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Pur Prahladpur.
2. Briefly stated the allegations against the petitioner are that on 25.5.2012, eight containers containing goods of various description, imported at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, were illegally taken out from the custody of CONCOR on the basis of gate passes which were apparently bearing forged signatures of Customs Officers. The said containers contained one thousand imported air conditioners, more than 600 imported gas cylinders of R-22 refrigerant gas and 580 cartons (62,40,000 sticks) of imported cigarettes of Indonesian origin. The total value of the goods was worth more than `10 crores.
3. It is also the case of the prosecution that R-22 refrigerant gas is an Ozone depleting substance and its import is restricted as per Foreign Trade Policy. The investigations by the Customs Authorities were conducted and the statement of the present petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded. Similarly, the statements of driver and co-accused of the present petitioner were also recorded, who took the name of the present petitioner pursuant to which raids were conducted at the godowns of the present petitioner and the goods which were illegally taken out, on the basis of the alleged forged documents, are stated to have been recovered. Similarly, the documents which are purported to be forged have also been recovered and the specimen signatures and handwriting of the petitioner have also been obtained and sent for comparison to the Forensic Laboratory. On the basis of these allegations not only a complaint case under Customs Act was filed against the present petitioner but an FIR was also registered on 27.8.2012 bearing No.254/2012, under Sections 471/380/468/34 IPC, registered by Police Station Pur Prahladpur. The petitioner is on bail in the complaint case under Customs Act, being a bailable offence.
4. The present petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid FIR, had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions which came to be rejected on 23.11.2012 on the ground that the petitioner was evading appearance before the investigating agency and also because of the alleged forgeries having been made in taking out the goods from the ICD.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the second application for grant of anticipatory bail before this court.
6. I have heard Mr. Nandrajog, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who has vehemently contended that since the goods which are alleged to have been taken out from the ICD, Tughlakabad have been recovered, specimen signatures of the present petitioner have been obtained and sent for comparison with the questioned documents, no useful purpose would be served by denying the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner because his custodial interrogation is not required. For this purpose, the petitioner has also relied upon the case titled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors; (2011) 1 SCC 694 and the bail order passed by this court in Bail Application No.2492/2009 dated 19.3.2012 titled Monika Singh vs. State.
7. The second submission made by the learned counsel is that the incidence is purported to have taken place in the month of May, 2012. The Apex Court in Om Prakash & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr.; 2011 X AD (S.C.) 417 has observed that offences under Customs Act are bailable offences and, therefore, the petitioner was able to get the bail. It is stated that during the course of issuance of notices to the petitioner under Section 108
