Shamik Khanna @ Rishi Khanna vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Deptt. Of Revenue Intelligence, Lko.

Held

The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. The decision was based on the nature of the offense, the evidence on record regarding the accused's complicity, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also referred to the dictum of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another. While granting bail, the Court explicitly stated that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the case. The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to several conditions designed to ensure his presence during trial and prevent misuse of liberty. These conditions included undertaking not to seek adjournments, remaining present on each date, and facing proceedings under Section 174-A IPC if proclamation was issued and he failed to appear. The Court clarified that these observations would not affect the trial judge's independent opinion.

Facts

The applicant, Shamik Khanna, sought bail during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 12/2022, registered under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution alleged the recovery of 180 Kg of silver from the applicant's possession on July 6, 2022. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was falsely implicated for failing to provide documents for the silver's possession. He asserted he was the proprietor of a reputable jewelry firm and the silver was a bonafide purchase from M/s Auspicious Ornaments Private Ltd., Agra, with GST paid. The applicant had been in jail since July 7, 2022, and had no prior criminal history. The respondent opposed bail, citing ongoing investigation and likelihood of guilt, but conceded the applicant's clean record and the compoundable nature of the offense.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the applicant's alleged innocence, the compoundable nature of the offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the applicant's lack of criminal history? Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued innocence, false implication, the compoundable nature of the offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, with a maximum punishment of 07 years, the offense being triable by a Magistrate, and the applicant being a bonafide owner of the silver after paying the amount including GST. Also highlighted the applicant's clean criminal record and long incarceration since July 7, 2022. Revenue/State: Opposed bail, stating the investigation was ongoing and there was a likelihood of the applicant being found guilty, but could not dispute the applicant's lack of criminal history or the compoundable nature of the offense.