Vibhore Rastogi vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Deptt Of Revenue Intelligence Lko

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant Vibhore Rastogi on bail. The Court considered the totality of facts, including the applicant's claim of innocence, his involvement in legitimate business as a proprietor of a GST-registered firm, the fact that he claims to be the bonafide owner of the gold and had paid the amount including GST, the bail granted to a co-accused on parity, and the absence of other criminal antecedents. The Court also noted the applicant's undertaking not to misuse liberty and the likelihood of a delayed trial. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the revenue's concerns, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, found it to be a fit case for granting bail, citing various Supreme Court judgments on bail considerations. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, subject to several conditions including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, remaining present during crucial trial stages, filing an undertaking against seeking adjournments, and not indulging in criminal activity. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. The observations were limited to the bail application and did not affect the trial court's independent decision on the merits.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Vibhore Rastogi, the applicant, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant was apprehended with 2297.840 grams of gold of foreign origin mark, four mobile phones, and a Tata Harrier car by officials of the Department of Revenue Intelligence. The prosecution alleges the gold was smuggled from a foreign origin, intended for Mirzapur to be smelted, and then transported to Lucknow by the applicant and others. The applicant claims innocence, stating he is a proprietor of a firm registered with the GST department and involved in bullion bar trading. He asserts he is the bonafide owner of the seized gold and had paid the amount including GST. He also relies on the bail granted to a co-accused and the compoundable nature of the offence under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, with a maximum punishment of 7 years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2022 for offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the nature of the accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, and circumstances peculiar to the applicant? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. - The offence falls within the compoundable category under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, with a maximum punishment of 7 years. - The applicant is the bonafide owner of the seized gold and had paid the amount including GST. - A co-accused, Shamik Khanna, has been enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. - The applicant has no other criminal antecedents. - There is no possibility of the applicant fleeing or tampering with witnesses. - The applicant undertakes not to misuse liberty if granted bail. - Due to heavy pendency of cases, there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. Revenue's Arguments: - The seized gold is smuggled gold of foreign origin. - The allegations are very serious in nature. - Delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal at this juncture. - If released, the applicant will indulge in similar activities and misuse liberty.