Batchu Chandra Sekhar vs. The Senior Intelligence Officer

Held

The Court dismissed the Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner. While the petitioner argued that the seized gold was locally sourced and all taxes, including GST, were paid, making the Customs Act inapplicable, and that the co-accused were already released on bail, the Court did not find these grounds sufficient for granting anticipatory bail. The respondent's contention that the petitioner was involved in two other crimes and needed to appear before the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act was also noted. After considering the facts, circumstances, and submissions from both sides, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. No specific findings were recorded on the applicability of the Customs Act or the nature of the gold seized, as the decision was based on the overall assessment of the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail in the given context.

Facts

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) registered a case (F.No.DRI/HZU/VJRU/48/ENQ-21/2020) for offences under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The DRI apprehended three individuals on February 1, 2020, in Vijayawada, who were allegedly transporting smuggled gold bars from Chennai to Warangal. These individuals, identified as A1 to A3, admitted to working for the petitioner and collecting gold from Haragopal Sowkarpet, Chennai, on the petitioner's instructions. The petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail, contended that the seized gold was locally sourced, purchased through proper channels with invoices and all due taxes, including GST, paid, thus making the Customs Act inapplicable. The petitioner also noted that A1 to A3 were released on bail on March 19, 2020, and his prior anticipatory bail application was dismissed without reasons. The respondent opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's involvement in two other crimes and the requirement for him to appear before the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR registered for offences under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the allegations of involvement in illegal transportation of smuggled gold. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seized gold was locally sourced and purchased through legitimate channels, with all applicable taxes, including GST, duly paid, rendering the Customs Act inapplicable. He further contended that the co-accused (A1 to A3) had already been released on bail and that his previous anticipatory bail application was dismissed without proper consideration of the grounds raised. The petitioner also asserted no prior criminal record. Revenue's (DRI) arguments: The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the DRI opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, highlighting the petitioner's alleged involvement in two other crimes. The respondent stated that the petitioner would need to appear before the DRI after receiving a notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, at which point the decision regarding his arrest would be made.