The Sessions Court of Greater Bombay has rejected the Bail Cancellation plea of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the old Smuggling Case involving Rs. 20 Crores.
The bench of S.B. Pawar (Additional Sessions Judge) has observed that trial Court while deciding the plea of accused ‘s bail, has considered all the relevant material in detail and released the accused on bail by imposing certain conditions, which even the Apex Court, while dealing with the petition challenging preventive detention of the accused , was pleased to consider. No supervening circumstances are brought on record which warrant interference under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC. in the bail order passed in favour of the accused.
The applicant, DR on a specific intelligence regarding involvement of a syndicate led by the accused alongwith his wife, in smuggling of gold into India and selling it in the Grey market was received. The search was conducted.
During the search, smuggled gold in various forms cumulatively weighing 10706.65 grams valued at Rs.7,14,13,356 and cash amounting to Rs.1,80,15,600 was found at the said premises. Statements of employees Mahipal Vyas and Ummed Singh were recorded which confirmed that the accused were involved in trading of smuggled gold.
During a search of the residential premises of the accused , it was found that the house was in complete disarray. The accused had tried to destroy the evidence.
Some recovery was made from the premises belonging to the other accused consisting of 3772.38 grams of smuggled gold. On 06.03.2024 three mobile phones were recovered and on 19.03.2024 two gold bars were seized from the premises of Sai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society.
It is alleged that the accused is the mastermind of a racket of gold smuggling into India by evading huge Customs Duty and causing loss to the government exchequer.
It is worthwhile to noted that after accused was enlarged on bail, preventive detention order under COFEPOSA Act was passed and he was in detention since 16.05.2024. The wife of the respondent challenged the detention order by filing Criminal Appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 is pleased to set aside the detention order and to order release of the respondent. Thus from 16.05.2024 till 06.03.2025 the respondent was under detention under COFEPOSA Act.
The cancellation of bail granted to the accused is sought by the DRI on various grounds.
Firstly, the accused with other accused hatched a plan to smuggle gold to India and to sell it in the local market on a cash basis.
Secondly, the accused has given evasive replies during the investigation and has not disclosed all the true and correct facts.
Thirdly, the accused is a habitual and repeat offender in smuggling.
Fourthly, the accused tried to destroy evidence by throwing away his mobile phone.
Fifthly, continued judicial custody of the accused is necessary to bust out his smuggling network and to gather more evidence.
Sixthly, ACMM Court has failed to exercise judicial discretion on the facts and circumstances of the case by granting bail to the accused . Due to bail granted to the accused , further investigation is hampered.
Lastly, there is a possibility that the accused may tamper with or destroy the evidence or influence the witnesses. There is a possibility that accused may abscond and will not appear for further investigation.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the counsel for the accused contended that complaint in the Court is still not filed by the DRI. The period of more than one year from the date of first remand is elapsed. As per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused becomes entitled to statutory bail if investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, depending on the punishment provided for the offence. The investigating agency can not insist for custody of an accused for an indefinite period without completing investigation, in the present case without filing a complaint within the stipulated period.
Dr. Kantawala added that the accused was already in custody from 06.03.2024 to 16.04.2024 and even otherwise he would have been entitled to statutory bail after the period of 60 days was over. In this view of the matter, the prayer for cancellation of bail coupled with continuation of investigation without filing a complaint is not permissible under the law.
Therefore, the court rejected DRI’s bail cancellation application.
Case Details
Case Title: DRI Versus Sameer Haroon Merchant
Case No.: Misc. Application No. 949 of 2024
Date: 01/04/2025
Counsel For Applicant: SSP Siddharth Chandrashekhar
Counsel For Respondent: Dr. Sujay Kantawala
Read More: PAN Card Fraud in UP: Poor Farmer Slapped With Rs. 30 Crore Income Tax Notice
