Vishal Prabhakar Kumbhardare vs. Thr Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the custody of the applicant cannot be extended solely because his wife failed to produce documents or based on a vague apprehension of tampering. It was noted that the applicant's factory and office premises had been searched and all relevant documents, including computers, were seized, which prima facie addresses the concern of document tampering. The Court also found that the applicant is a permanent resident with strong societal roots, making the chances of absconding or thwarting justice minimal. The issue of whether the applicant is liable for penalty and interest was deemed a matter for adjudication. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, imposing specific terms and conditions, including furnishing bail bonds, reporting to the DGGI, not entering Vedanta Engineering's office premises for a specified period, and providing contact details.

Facts

The applicant, Mr. Vishal Prabhakar Kumbhardare, Managing Director of M/s. Siddhakala Renewable Energy System Pvt. Ltd., was arrested in connection with C.R.No.33/2018 registered with the Directorate of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Pune Zonal Unit. The DGGI alleged that the applicant imported evacuated tubes with solar selective coating but instead of using them in his manufacturing process, sold them to various companies, including one owned by his wife, thereby fraudulently evading customs duty amounting to Rs.1,07,58,321. The applicant was arrested on July 30, 2018, and has been in judicial custody since then. He has already deposited the alleged evaded duty amount. The core of the opposition to his bail application by the respondents is that the applicant did not disclose the sale of these tubes to Vedanta Company, owned by his wife, and that his wife failed to produce relevant documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, considering the allegations of fraudulent evasion of customs duty and the pending adjudication of penalty and interest. Petitioner's Contention: The applicant argues that he is a manufacturer of water heater systems and the imported evacuated tubes are essential for this process. He contends that he has used the tubes in his manufacturing process and is therefore not liable for the customs duty. He has already deposited the entire alleged evaded duty amount, and the question of penalty and interest is a matter for adjudication. The applicant also highlights that his factory and office premises have been searched and all relevant documents seized, mitigating the risk of tampering. Revenue's Contention: The respondents oppose bail primarily on the ground that the applicant failed to disclose the sale of evacuated tubes to Vedanta Company, owned by his wife, and that his wife has not produced the relevant documents. They apprehend that if released, the applicant may tamper with these documents.