Ravindra Kumar S/O Shri Ranjeet Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail applications of all the petitioners. The Court acknowledged the serious allegations of customs duty evasion but noted that the evidence on record is primarily documentary and electronic, and the ocular evidence would come from official witnesses, thus minimizing the apprehension of tampering. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India, which emphasizes that at the stage of bail, it is not necessary to delve into the details of rival contentions as the matter is sub-judice before the trial court. The Court considered the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioners (over eight months to over a year), the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheets, and the fact that the trial would take time. The Court also noted that the offenses under Section 132 of the Customs Act are bailable and Section 135 provides for a maximum sentence of seven years. Given these circumstances, and the absence of any remaining investigation or risk of tampering, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The petitioners were directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 2 lakhs with two sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each, and to appear before the trial court on fixed dates.

Facts

The petitioners, who are in custody, have filed multiple bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are accused of various offenses under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, involving alleged evasion of customs duty amounting to crores of rupees. The allegations include the issuance of fake invoices, illegal import of gold and precious metals, and the remittance of funds abroad through fraudulent means. The investigation has been completed, and charge sheets have been filed before the competent court. The petitioners have been in custody for periods ranging from approximately eight months to over a year.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the serious allegations of customs duty evasion and the completion of the investigation and filing of charge sheets? 2. Whether the evidence on record, primarily documentary and electronic, coupled with official witness testimonies, warrants continued detention of the petitioners? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contend that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They argue that there is no direct evidence on record to prove their involvement in the alleged offenses. They also claim that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were obtained under duress and are not admissible. Furthermore, they assert that the investigation is complete, and their continued detention is unnecessary, especially since the evidence is largely documentary and electronic, posing no risk of tampering. They also highlight that the offenses under Section 132 of the Customs Act are bailable, and Section 135 provides for a maximum sentence of seven years, making the case fit for bail. The petitioners also rely on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India. Revenue's arguments: The revenue (Union of India) has not explicitly recorded arguments in the judgment, but their stance is implied by their opposition to the bail applications and the filing of charge sheets against the petitioners.