BAIL APPLN. 2538/2023

Page 1 of 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 04.08.2023

Judgment pronounced on: 08.08.2023

+

BAIL APPLN. 2538/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1065/2023

MR. HIMANSHU MONGIA

..... Petitioner

versus

DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai, Mr.

Sidharth Yadav, Mr. Sidhant Saraswat,

Mr. Suyash Goverdhan, Mr. Akshay

Jain, Mr. Sharian Mukherjee and Mr.

Mueed Shah, Advocates.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Senior Standing

Counsel with Mr. Shagan Vaswani,

Advocate, SIO Abhishek Gaur and IO

Tarun Sharma.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

1.

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by

the

applicant

seeking

anticipatory

bail

in

file

No.DRI-HQ-

CI/C50D/INT/13/2022 being investigated by the respondent-Directorate

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:08.08.2023

15:45:03

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 2538/2023

Page 2 of 12

of Revenue Intelligence (for Short “DRI”).

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the applicant was running

dummy entities through untrained and random individuals. It is alleged

that one such entity was M/s. Green Globe Enterprises, which imported

three consignments in the month of December 2022. The same were

intercepted by the DRI on allegations of evasion of duty and based

thereon the case was instituted.

3.

Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the

applicant submits that it is a matter of record that the applicant is not a

Director/Partner/Key Managerial person/employee of the said entity. He

further submits that the actual partners of the said entity, one Sh.

Mukesh and Sh. Rajbeer, in their statements have categorically

mentioned that the said entity was incorporated on the instructions of

one Manjeet and not the applicant.

4.

Learned senior counsel also submits that the entire case is on

documentary evidence, the same already being in possession and

custody of DRI, there is no purpose in seeking custodial interrogation of

the application by the DRI.

5.

Mr. Hariharan learned senior counsel submits that the applicant in

the present case is seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest at the

hands of DRI. Learned senior counsel submits that the contention of the

DRI that it is merely summoning the application under Section 108 of

Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”) is a misnomer since the DRI

has already made up its mind to arrest the applicant.

6.

To support the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:08.08.2023

15:45:03

Signature Not Verified

BAIL APPLN. 2538/2023

Page 3 of 12

draws attention of this Court to the notices issued under Section 108 of

the Customs Act issued by the DRI, whereby the applicant has been

directed to appear in an inquiry in connection with “investigation in

respect of imported goods by M/s Green Globe”. According to learned

senior counsel the use of the word “investigation” stands in

contradistinction to the word “inquiry” inasmuch as the investigation is

a stage where the agency could, if so required, arrest any person who

appears to it to be culpable in any of the cognizable offences. In other

words, learned senior counsel submits that the apprehension of arrest as

contemplated under Section 438 Cr.P.C, 1973 is present and real and

established simply by the issuance of notices for the purposes of

“investigation”.

7.

That apart, learned senior counsel also invites attention of this

Court to the reply filed by the DRI particularly to para 8 sub-para (iii) to

submit that the allegation contained in the sub para themselves point out

to the fact that the DRI has a