Bail Can’t Be Cancelled Mechanically: Panvel Sessions Court Rejects DRI Plea in Alleged Import of Pakistan-Origin Dry Dates Case

The Additional Sessions Court at Panvel has rejected an application filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused trader in a case involving the alleged import of Pakistan-origin dry dates routed through the UAE, holding that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner in the absence of supervening circumstances. The DRI had moved Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2025 under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), challenging a bail order dated September 8, 2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Uran. The Magistrate had granted bail to the accused in a customs case arising from the seizure of dry dates allegedly originating from Pakistan. According to the DRI, the Magistrate committed grave legal errors by holding that dry dates were not “prohibited goods.” The agency contended that this finding ignored DGFT Notification No. 06/2025–26 dated May 2, 2025, which imposes an origin-based prohibition on the import of all goods originating directly or indirectly from Pakistan in the interest of national security. Once the country of origin is established as Pakistan, the goods automatically become prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, irrespective of the commodity, the DRI argued The DRI further alleged that the accused had adopted a deliberate modus operandi to conceal the Pakistani origin of the goods by routing the consignments through Jebel Ali, UAE. It was claimed that M/s Servotech Shipping and Logistics acted as a concealed facilitator, despite lacking an import-export licence, and that bills of lading issued at Karachi named the said firm as consignee. The agency also relied on the accused’s statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, asserting that UAE domestic invoices were generated in a batch at the end of the year and were not contemporaneous with the transactions. According to the DRI, this practice of creating backdated documents undermined the authenticity of the certificates of origin and pointed to a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the provenance of the goods. On these grounds, the DRI submitted that the gravity of the offence and the accused’s alleged control over the supply chain justified cancellation of bail. Opposing the plea, Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the counsel for the accused argued that the application was devoid of merit and that the offence, even if assumed, was bailable. Reliance was placed on Section 104(6)(b) of the Customs Act, which makes offences non-bailable only when they relate to prohibited goods notified both under Section 11 and Section 135(1)(i)(c) of the Act. It was contended that dry dates were not notified under these provisions and therefore did not attract the non-bailable regime. The defence further submitted that the business was a legitimate trading operation dealing in multiple commodities and that statements allegedly admitting Pakistani origin were obtained under duress and later retracted. It was also argued that no forensic or scientific evidence had been produced to establish that the seized dry dates were of Pakistani origin. The accused relied on Supreme Court rulings in Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, which lay down that bail already granted can be cancelled only on the basis of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, usually involving misuse of liberty or supervening events. After hearing both sides, the Additional Sessions Judge noted that the accused had complied with all bail conditions and had cooperated with the investigation. Importantly, the DRI had not alleged any violation of bail conditions, non-cooperation, witness intimidation, or tampering with evidence after the grant of bail. The court reiterated the settled principle that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing from rejection of bail at the initial stage. In the absence of any material showing abuse of liberty or supervening circumstances, the court held that interference with the Magistrate’s order was not warranted. Finding no justification to cancel the bail already granted, the Sessions Court rejected the DRI’s application, reaffirming that bail cannot be cancelled merely because the prosecution disagrees with the reasoning of the court that granted it. The order was passed on November 11, 2025 by Additional Sessions Judge S.R. Ugale, Panvel, and was uploaded on January 5, 2026 Case Details Case Title: DRI Vs. Deepak Sewani Case No.: Cri.M.A. No.86/2025 Date: 11/11/2025 Counsel For Respondent: Dr. Sujay Kantawala Click Here To Read Order Read More: GYANOTSAV 2026 Starts Today with Live Coverage of India’s Premier Knowledge Carnival

Bail Can’t Be Cancelled Mechanically: Panvel Sessions Court Rejects DRI Plea in Alleged Import of Pakistan-Origin Dry Dates Case

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 15 AUGUST, 2026

CBIC Promotion Hierarchy: From Inspector and Superintendent to Principal Chief Commissioner — A Detailed Guide to the Career Structure

ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148 Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period

GST Refund Can’t Be Withheld During Tribunal Appeal Without Specific S. 54(11) Order: Patna High Court

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 15 AUGUST, 2026

CBIC Promotion Hierarchy: From Inspector and Superintendent to Principal Chief Commissioner — A Detailed Guide to the Career Structure

ITAT Quashes Reassessment as Section 148 Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period

About us

Company

Categories