Raghav Aggarwal vs. Inspector Of Customs

Held

The Court held that the guilt of the petitioner/accused shall be determined during the trial, which is likely to take considerable time. The detention of the petitioner during this period would not serve any useful purpose, especially since several co-accused have been granted bail and the petitioner has been granted pre-arrest bail in the connected FIR case. The Court found no past criminal antecedents or evidence of the petitioner being a hardened criminal on record. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be in the interest of justice to accept the petition. The interim bail granted to the petitioner was made absolute, subject to conditions including appearance on each date of hearing, not threatening prosecution witnesses, not leaving India without prior permission, and surrendering his passport or furnishing an affidavit. The trial court was also empowered to impose further conditions to ensure the petitioner does not abscond or interfere with the trial. The Court clarified that its observations were not an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Raghav Aggarwal, is an accused in a complaint filed under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and an FIR registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The case involves the use of 117 fake TR-6 challans, totaling Rs. 1,46,63,546 in customs duty, to clear imported goods from Pakistan without payment. The petitioner was arrested, and his bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on October 29, 2016. He then approached the High Court for regular bail. The petitioner had previously been granted pre-arrest bail in the connected FIR case and interim bail in the present complaint case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the complaint case under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the amount of alleged evasion and his role, as argued by the complainant (respondent No. 1)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he has been granted pre-arrest bail in the connected State case (CRM-M-38560-2015) and that several co-accused in the present complaint case (Varun Mahajan, Saurabh Saini, and Pawan Kumar) have already been granted regular bail. He also highlighted that he has been granted interim bail in this case and has not misused the concession, expressing readiness to face trial. Therefore, regular bail should be granted. Revenue/State's arguments: The complainant (respondent No. 1) opposed the bail request, arguing that given the huge amount of tax evasion and the petitioner's role in the scam, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.