The Court Of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai has granted bail to the exporter accused of abetment of Rs.7.15 crores customs duty evasion.
The bench of S. K. Fokmare (Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate) has observed that the applicant’s firm has supplied the invoices to importer M/s. Gayatri Exports and on the basis of invoices the Gayatri Exports has undervalued the price of inshell walnuts while importing the goods. Thus the allegations against applicant / accused for abetment of evasion of customs duty worth Rs.7.15 crores. Here it is not in dispute that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious ones. The allegations are about commission of economic offence. However, it is not in dispute that, since her arrest on 01.09.2025 the applicant is in custody. Since last 17 days the DRI has got sufficient opportunity for interrogation with the accused. As per request of DRI the permission was granted to interrogate the accused in jail premises.
The applicant/accused, Rasheeda Gulamally has prayed for releasing her on bail in connection with the case registered with DRI under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962. It has been alleged that the accused/applicant is a partner of M/s. Rasheeda Foodstuff Trading LLC has issued fake invoices to the import of M/s. Gayatri Exports for undervaluation of the inshell walnuts through her firm. It has been alleged that the accused/applicant has abetted M/s. Gayatri Exports in evasion of customs duty worth Rs.7.15 crores. The applicant was arrested on 01.09.2025. At present she is in judicial custody.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, on behalf of the applicant contended that she is Overseas Citizen of India permanently residing with family in Dubai. The applicant has never concerned herself with illegal activities. She never indulged in manipulation of invoices. The applicant is only a namesake partner holding 49% shares in M/s M/s. Rasheeda Foodstuff Trading LLC. It is the husband of the applicant who looks after the day to day business of said firm. Since 01.08.2025 on a number of occasions the applicant has co-operated the investigation. All documents, invoices are in possession of DRI. No discovery or recovery is pending from this applicant. The E-mail address and password of her company is with DRI. The husband of the applicant has offered himself for interrogation and recording statements by DRI.
Dr. Kantawala argued that the real dispute is regarding valuation of goods by one M/s Gayatri Exports the exporter. The allegations levelled against applicant’s firm are only for issuance of invoices. The applicant is not directly involved in alleged evasion of customs duty worth Rs.7.15 crores. For ascertaining the valuation of the goods it is for DRI to initiate appropriate proceedings against the importers. It will take time to complete said proceeding. For the last 17 days the applicant has been in jail. The main accused is already released on bail. The applicant has co-operated the investigation. Now there is no necessity to keep the applicant behind bars. The offence is not punishable with death. The offence is triable by the court. Hence the applicant prayed for allowing this application.
The DRI contended that the investigation is at a crucial stage. It has been contended that, even though the DRI has interrogated the accused and has recorded her statement, some material documents are yet to be recovered. On the other hand it has been submitted on behalf of the accused that the accused has co-operated the investigation since beginning. The accused has attended the office of DRI a number of times for recording her statement. Further it has been submitted that the accused is ready to co-operate the investigation by furnishing other documentary material available with the firm.
The court held that the physical presence of the accused/applicant does not seem to be necessary for conducting further investigation in the crime. So far as apprehension regarding tampering the evidence or fleeing from justice is concerned stringent conditions can be imposed against the accused. Thus considering the circumstances on record the accused seems to be entitled for bail on her executing P.R. Bond of Rs.2,00,000 with one or more sureties in like amount.
The court has imposed various bail conditions.
Firstly, the accused will be provisionally released on her furnishing cash bail of Rs.2,00,000 in lieu of surety for 2 months.
Secondly, she shall not influence and tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence. She shall co-operate for further investigation in the case.
Thirdly, she is directed to remain present as and when called by respondent in connection with investigation of this offence under written intimation, till further investigation is completed or till further order.
Fourthly, she shall surrender her passport to the respondent for the period of six months from the date of her arrest before the respondent. The department returned the passport to her after said period with due acknowledgment without any reference to the court.
Fifthly, she shall take prior permission of the court for travelling abroad.
Sixthly, she shall furnish her residential address with proof, E-mail and telephone/mobile number to the Court and to the Department. She shall not change said addresses, telephone/mobile number without prior intimation in writing to the Court and concern Department.
Lastly, she shall furnish address and mobile number of two of her nearest relatives with their consent to the Court and department alongwith their address proof for contacting them if she failed to appear during further investigation before respondent and during trial of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Rasheeda Gulamally V/s, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Mumbai
Case No.: R.A. NO.710 OF 2025
Date: 17.09.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Dr. Sujay Kantawala
Counsel For Respondent: Special PP Mr. Shyamrishi Pathak
