Navratan Singh Jain S/O Gautam Singh Jain vs. Union Ofindia

Facts

The petitioner, Navratan Singh Jain, is seeking bail in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and co-accused formed several fake companies, opened bank accounts in their names, and issued fake invoices worth crores of rupees. These fake invoices were allegedly used to import gold, silver, and precious metals illegally into India. The proceeds from selling these items in the Indian market were then remitted abroad to Hong Kong and the USA for services that were never rendered. During the investigation, approximately 200 bank accounts were found to be involved in the illegal import of gold and silver, with crores of rupees transacted. The petitioner was arrested on October 28, 2022, and has been in custody for over six months. The charge sheet has been filed.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the arguments from both sides, the documentary and oral evidence presented, and various judicial pronouncements. It noted that the investigation and charge sheet have been filed, and the case is at its initial stage. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner has been in custody for approximately six months and that there is no likelihood of tampering with the documentary evidence or the witnesses, who are Customs officials. The offenses alleged are triable by a Magistrate, with a maximum imprisonment of seven years. The Court also took into account that co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. Considering the petitioner's period of custody, the absence of prior criminal records, the fact that the case is triable by a Magistrate, and the bail granted to co-accused, the Court found the bail application to be deserving of consideration. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs and two sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each to the satisfaction of the trial court, and to appear on fixed dates and whenever summoned, provided he is not required in any other case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of large-scale financial fraud involving fake invoices and illegal import/export of precious metals, and the stage of the investigation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he is innocent and has been arrested without any basis. He argues that no statements were recorded in his presence by the Customs officials, rendering any such statements inadmissible and void. He further claims there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against him under the Customs Act, and no recovery was made from him during the investigation. The petitioner highlights that he has been in custody for over six months, has no prior criminal record, and that co-accused have been granted bail by this Court. He also points out that the offenses under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act are bailable and punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment, and the case is triable by a Magistrate. He emphasizes that the case relies on documentary and electronic evidence, which are prone to tampering, and the witnesses are Customs officials who are not intimidated. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argues that the petitioner and co-accused conspired to commit economic offenses by issuing fake invoices and illegally remitting large sums of money abroad. They contend that documentary and oral evidence has been collected during the investigation. The respondent states that the petitioner admitted to all the facts in his statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which are admissible evidence. They highlight that 80 kg of gold was involved in fake invoices and that the case is of a serious nature. The respondent also argues that the co-accused granted bail had longer periods of custody than the petitioner, and the petitioner played a leading and active role in the conspiracy.