Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit Lko

Facts

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted two individuals, Lalmohan Panja and Harekrishna Parai, with 558.900 grams of gold valued at Rs. 3,29,25,000/- and Rs. 3.28 Crores in cash. They claimed to be delivering these to Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai (the applicant) and his brother. A subsequent search of the applicant's office premises yielded an additional 7,700 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs. 3,69,60,000/-. A locker at another co-accused's residence contained 20,500 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs. 12,42,62,400/-. Test reports indicated varying gold content in the seized samples. The applicant had previously filed for anticipatory bail, which was rejected. He surrendered and has been in judicial custody since June 29, 2024. The complaint was filed under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court acknowledged the applicant's arguments regarding the lack of prima facie material to establish the foreign origin of the seized gold, which is crucial for attracting Section 135 of the Customs Act. It noted that the applicant is a proprietor of a firm registered under GST, maintains proper books of accounts, files GST and income tax returns, and has a bank account, indicating he is a bonafide businessman. The Court considered the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding bail, emphasizing that deprivation of liberty is punitive and should not be used as a punishment before conviction. It found that the applicant is not a flight risk and there is no apprehension of him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court also noted that the charge under Section 135 of the Customs Act is yet to be established in trial and balanced the applicant's personal liberty against the potential punishment. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions including not seeking adjournments, remaining present in court, not leaving the country without leave, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seized gold jewellery is of foreign origin, thereby attracting Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962? The petitioner argues that there is no material on record, other than the statements of co-accused, to establish that the seized gold is of foreign origin. He contends that the gold jewellery was not in the form of bars or pieces and was not recovered from an airport or port, suggesting it was not smuggled. The petitioner highlights his status as a registered businessman under GST, with proper accounts, GST returns, and income tax returns, which he claims corroborate his business turnover and justify the recovered gold. The Revenue (DRI) relies on the statements of the co-accused and the recovery itself to establish the foreign origin of the gold. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.? The applicant argues that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, citing precedents that emphasize personal liberty and that detention before conviction is punitive. He asserts he is not a flight risk and cannot tamper with evidence. The Revenue's stance on bail is not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their opposition to the bail application is implied by their role as the opposite party.