Lalmohan Panja vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Deptt. Of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Facts

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted Lalmohan Panja (applicant) and Harekrishna Parai on February 20, 2024, recovering 558.900 grams of gold of foreign origin valued at Rs. 49,760,000/- and Indian currency worth Rs. 32,925,000/-. The applicant claimed he was an employee of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, traveling to deliver the items to his employers. Subsequent searches led to the recovery of additional gold valued at Rs. 36,960,000/- from a flat in Chowk, Lucknow, and gold ornaments valued at Rs. 124,262,400/- from a locker at co-accused Sumit Kumar Rastogi's residence. The applicant and co-accused have been in jail since February 23, 2024. The applicant sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in DRI Case No. 6/2024, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Held

The Court rejected the bail application of the applicant, Lalmohan Panja. The Court found that while the applicant claimed to be an employee of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, the evidence presented, including bank statements of the firms, did not sufficiently establish his status as a regular employee. The Court noted the absence of the applicant's own bank statements, identity documents, residence proof, or lease agreements. The bank statements of the firms showed random entries corresponding to the applicant's name but lacked consistency and regularity in terms of time and amount to demonstrate salary payments. The Court also found it surprising that the applicant had not filed his own bank statements. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide clear explanations regarding the customers from whom he allegedly collected large cash proceeds, the nature of his work for two separate firms, or any documentation to support these claims. The Court concluded that there was prima facie complicity of the applicant in the recovery of a huge quantity of cash, gold, and gold ornaments, and therefore, was not inclined to enlarge him on bail. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, claiming to be an employee, has provided sufficient evidence to establish his role as a mere employee and not an active participant in the alleged smuggling of gold of foreign origin and cash, thereby entitling him to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and principles of bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is an employee of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, receiving a salary and expenses, and was merely transporting the seized items and cash on behalf of his employers. He contended that the seized items and cash belonged to his employers, who are registered firms paying GST, and that any leviable tax or penalty would be paid by them. He also pointed out that searches at the employers' premises yielded nothing incriminating and that the alleged offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 is compoundable. He further argued that no independent evidence was collected by the DRI apart from self-incriminating statements, which are inadmissible, and that a co-accused, Sumit Kumar Rastogi, was granted bail. Revenue's Arguments: The DRI opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant was actively engaged in the smuggling of gold of foreign origin. They contended that the applicant and co-accused were apprehended with a huge quantity of gold, gold ornaments, and cash, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for the source of the cash or from whom it was received in lieu of gold ornaments sold. The DRI asserted that a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, is made out.