The City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay has rejected an application filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seeking cancellation of bail granted to businessman Falgun Yogendra Shroff in an Italian Furniture customs duty evasion.
The Additional Sessions Judge Amit Anant Laulkar found no evidence of violation of bail conditions, attempt to abscond, non-cooperation with investigation, and tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The DRI had approached the Sessions Court under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, challenging an earlier bail order passed by a Magistrate court in August 2025. The agency argued that the case involved serious economic offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, including allegations of undervaluation of imports, and required custodial interrogation of the accused.
The DRI contended that the accused had failed to cooperate fully with the investigation despite multiple summons. The agency contended that Shroff withheld critical documents such as original invoices and login credentials linked to the alleged undervaluation scheme. It further argued that new developments in the investigation necessitated custodial interrogation, especially within the statutory period permitted under the new criminal procedure framework.
The DRI also claimed that the accused had breached bail conditions and that the gravity of the offence—described as a socio-economic crime with wider implications—warranted cancellation of bail.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the Counsel for the accused strongly opposed the plea, calling the application “false and misconceived.” It emphasized that there were no supervening circumstances or violations of bail conditions that could justify cancellation.
Dr. Kantawala highlighted that he had consistently cooperated with the investigation, appeared before authorities when summoned, and provided relevant documents, including access to multiple email accounts. The defence also pointed out that the trial court had permitted the accused to travel abroad on multiple occasions, after which he returned to India in compliance with court directions. His passport was eventually returned permanently, indicating the court’s confidence in his conduct.
Additionally, the accused had deposited ₹5 crore with the government treasury, which was cited as a mark of bona fides.
The Sessions Court underscored the settled legal principle that cancellation of bail is a serious matter and cannot be ordered mechanically. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana and Dipak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court reiterated that “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances” are required to justify such cancellation.
The court noted that the accused had complied with all conditions imposed by the trial court and had cooperated with the investigation process.
Importantly, the court observed that the DRI’s attempt to seek cancellation of bail appeared to be an indirect challenge to the original bail order. It held that such grievances should have been addressed before an appropriate appellate forum rather than through a cancellation application.
The court also flagged an unexplained delay in filing the application. While the bail was granted on August 2, 2025, the DRI moved the Sessions Court only on August 26, 2025, without providing sufficient justification for the delay.
Further, the court clarified that its powers under the relevant provision do not extend to re-examining the legality of a bail order as if it were sitting in appeal or revision.
Concluding that no supervening or compelling circumstances were established, the court held that the application lacked merit. It emphasized that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled lightly unless there is clear misuse of liberty or obstruction of justice.
Accordingly, the court rejected the DRI’s application and upheld the bail granted to the accused.
Case Details
Case Title: Senior Intelligence Officer Versus Falgun Yogendra Shroff
Case No.: MISC. APPLICATION No. 2021 OF 2025
Date: 23/03/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: S.R. Pathak
Counsel For Respondent: Dr. Sujay Kantawala
