Harekrishna Parai vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Deptt. Of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Facts

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted Harekrishna Parai (applicant) and a co-accused on February 20, 2024, recovering 558.900 grams of gold of foreign origin valued at Rs. 4,97,60,000/- and Indian currency worth Rs. 3,29,25,000/-. The applicant claimed he was travelling to Mumbai to deliver these items to his employers, Ramkrishna Parai and Laxman Parai. Subsequent searches led to the recovery of additional gold valued at Rs. 3,69,60,000/- from a flat in Lucknow and Rs. 12,42,62,400/- from a locker in another co-accused's residence, the key to which was found with the applicant. The applicant and co-accused have been in custody since February 23, 2024. The applicant sought bail in DRI Case No. 6/2024, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Held

The Court rejected the bail application of the applicant, Harekrishna Parai. The Court found that while the applicant claimed to be an employee of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, and presented bank statements of these firms, he failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish his ordinary residency in Mumbai or his regular employment. The Court noted the absence of his own bank statements, identity documents, residence proof, or lease agreements. The bank statements of the firms showed random entries related to the applicant and his family members, but lacked consistency and regularity to confirm salary payments. The Court also found it doubtful that the applicant was authorized to collect such large cash proceeds without any supporting documentation like diaries or records of customers and sales. The Court distinguished the applicant's case from that of co-accused Sumit Kumar Rastogi, who was granted bail, by noting that the applicant provided the key to the locker from which gold was recovered, indicating constructive possession. Prima facie, the applicant's complicity was evident, and the Court was not inclined to grant bail at this stage. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, claiming to be an employee, has provided sufficient documentation to establish his employment status and the legitimacy of the recovered items and cash, thereby entitling him to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged smuggling under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is merely an employee of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, owned by Ramkrishna Parai and Laxman Parai respectively. He claimed to be a goldsmith and office assistant, receiving a salary and expenses, and that the recovered items and cash belonged to his employers. He contended that the alleged offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, is compoundable and punishable up to 7 years. He also highlighted that searches at his employers' premises yielded no incriminating evidence, and his employers admitted ownership and willingness to pay any leviable duty or penalty. He further submitted that no independent evidence was collected by the DRI, apart from self-incriminating statements, and that a co-accused, Sumit Kumar Rastogi, was granted bail. Revenue's Arguments: The DRI opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant was actively engaged in smuggling foreign-origin gold. They disputed the applicant's version of events and argued that the case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, was made out due to the large quantity of recovered gold, ornaments, and cash found in the applicant's possession.