Sanjeev Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Deptt. Of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of Sanjeev Agarwal. The Court considered that the applicant was implicated solely on the basis of the custodial statement of a co-accused. It also took into account that the alleged offence carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment up to seven years and that the applicant has no previous criminal history. The Court noted that the applicant had been in jail since July 26, 2023. Without making any observations that could affect the merits of the case, the Court found these facts sufficient to grant bail. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not pressuring witnesses, and appearing on every date fixed by the trial court. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Sanjeev Agarwal (the applicant) in Case No. 10 of 2023, registered under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, at the Department of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow. The case originated from the recovery of 1160 grams of foreign origin gold from one Sanjit Kumar at Fatehpur railway station, who stated in his confessional statement that the gold was meant for the applicant in Kanpur. Subsequently, a raid was conducted at the applicant's shop, where gold worth Rs. 1,48,00,000/- was found. The applicant claims innocence, no criminal history, and that GST invoices for the gold's purchase and sale were provided to the authorities. The applicant has been in jail since July 26, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case No. 10 of 2023 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He contended that the offence alleged carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment up to seven years and that he has no prior criminal history. Furthermore, the applicant's counsel stated that there was no allegation of the recovered gold being smuggled and that GST invoices regarding the purchase and sale of gold were presented to the authorities. Revenue's Arguments: The Department of Revenue Intelligence opposed the bail application, highlighting the recovery of gold worth Rs. 1,48,00,000/- from the applicant's shop, for which the applicant could not produce any documents.