Ravindra Laxman Rao Mane vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Facts

The applicant, Ravindra Laxman Rao Mane, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized 5.8 kgs of smuggled gold in Mumbai on May 6, 2022. Subsequent searches led to the recovery of 37.129 kgs of smuggled gold, valued at approximately Rs. 21.65 Crores, and Rs. 23,50,256 in cash. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act indicated that the applicant, proprietor of Gopnath Jewellers, received smuggled gold parcels meant for Ganesh Jewellers through Angadia services. Receipts with the applicant's mobile number were found. The applicant had previously been denied pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court. The applicant claimed to be involved in testing gold purity and stated he cooperated with the DRI after obtaining interim protection.

Held

The Court held that there was prima facie material indicating the applicant's involvement in the alleged smuggling of gold. The statements of witnesses, including a director of the Angadia service provider and an arrested co-accused, specifically named the applicant as the recipient of approximately 36 kgs of smuggled melted gold. The court noted that the applicant did not contest the factum of gold delivery but claimed it was for purity testing. However, the presence of the applicant's mobile number on the parcels and his alleged attempts to dissuade witnesses from disclosing his involvement, as contended by the DRI, weighed against him. The Court found it difficult to accede to the submission that there was no credible material to form a reasonable belief about the applicant's complicity. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's guidance in *Satender Kumar Antil* regarding offences with lesser punishment, the Court found custodial interrogation indispensable for an effective investigation given the material on record. The Court also considered the quantity of gold smuggled and the resultant loss to public revenue as germane factors in appreciating the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether there is sufficient credible material to form a reasonable belief that the applicant has committed an offence under the Customs Act, 1962, justifying custodial interrogation, as required by Section 104 of the Act? The applicant argued that the prosecution must establish a case for custodial interrogation, especially given that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act entails a maximum punishment of seven years. He relied on Supreme Court judgments in *Arnesh Kumar* and *Satender Kumar Antil*, asserting that the offence is not of such grave nature to warrant custodial interrogation. The applicant further contended that the "reason to believe" standard under Section 104 requires credible material, not mere suspicion, citing a Bombay High Court order in *Narendra Amrutlal Patel*. He argued that the DRI failed to demonstrate this "reason to believe." The DRI countered that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act establish the applicant's complicity with certainty, particularly regarding the delivery of a huge quantity of gold. They argued that the applicant did not cooperate and suppressed information. The DRI emphasized the gravity of the offence due to the large quantity of smuggled gold and the potential loss to public revenue, citing Supreme Court judgments in *Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal*, *State vs. Anil Sharma*, and *Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy*.