Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the applicant's anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that the applicant's claim of being an employee of a Multi-National Company in Gurgaon was unsubstantiated, as his counsel could not even disclose the company's name or his capacity of employment. Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant's wife and son were present during the search of "Bablu Jewelers," a shop for which the applicant holds a license, GST registration, and bank account. This indicated the applicant's direct involvement in the business. While not expressing a final opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a case of a serious economic offense where custodial interrogation of the applicant by the investigation agency appeared necessary. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Facts

The applicant, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in relation to Crime No. INT. 54/2023 registered at the D.R.I. (Director of Revenue Intelligence), Bhopal, for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution alleged that on July 8, 2023, DRI intercepted a bus and seized 2001.7 gms of foreign origin gold, valued at Rs. 1,20,81,605/-. The apprehended individual, Imran Illahi, stated he was working for the applicant, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, who allegedly runs a jewelry shop named "Bablu Jewelers". Despite multiple notices, the applicant failed to appear before the investigating agency. The applicant claimed false implication, stating he is an employee of an MNC in Gurgaon and has no connection to Imran Illahi or a jewelry shop. The revenue contended that sufficient evidence links the applicant to the smuggling operation, citing statements from a co-accused, Manish Jain, who allegedly handed over the gold to Imran Illahi on behalf of the applicant and from whom over Rs. 2.5 Crores in cash was seized.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of smuggling foreign origin gold and his alleged involvement as the beneficiary of the smuggled goods, as per Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated, is an employee of a Multi-National Company in Gurgaon, and has no connection with Imran Illahi or any jewelry shop. He also contended that the notices were not sent to his correct address. Respondent's (Revenue's) Arguments: The respondent argued that sufficient evidence exists to implicate the applicant, including statements from co-accused Manish Jain, who allegedly supplied the smuggled gold to the applicant through Imran Illahi and received a substantial payment. The respondent emphasized the applicant's failure to appear before the agency despite multiple notices and the necessity of his custodial interrogation due to the serious economic offense of smuggling a large quantity of foreign gold.