The Bombay High Court at Goa has cancelled the bail granted to businessman Sanjay Vedrakash Soni in a case involving the alleged illegal import of ammunition components worth over Rs. 1.11 crore.
The bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal has observed that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary to uncover the full extent of the alleged offence. It noted that the case involved sensitive materials related to ammunition and that further investigation could reveal a larger network or pattern of illegal imports.
The bench noted that the lower court erred in granting bail without giving the investigating agency an opportunity to present its case and emphasized the seriousness of the offence involving restricted defence-related materials.
The bench passed the order while allowing an application filed by the DRI’s Goa Regional Unit seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) at Panaji. The High Court set aside the magistrate’s order dated November 19, 2025 and directed the accused to surrender before the investigating agency.
The case originated from a targeted intelligence operation conducted by officers of the DRI Goa Regional Unit. Acting on specific intelligence inputs, DRI officers intercepted a consignment imported by Hughes Precision Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (HPMP) at the Air Cargo Complex in Dabolim, Goa.
During examination of the consignment imported under a Bill of Entry dated November 2, 2025, officers discovered that the description of goods declared in the import documents did not match the actual items found. Further scrutiny revealed that the items included restricted ammunition components—bullets and cartridge cases—whose import required specific licensing under the law.
The import licence held by the company did not permit the import of these particular items, rendering them prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
The meticulous verification by DRI officers exposed discrepancies between declared documentation and the physical goods, highlighting an alleged attempt to bypass regulatory controls governing sensitive defence-related materials.
Following the seizure, DRI officers conducted searches at the importer’s premises. Their investigation uncovered another Bill of Entry dated June 7, 2025, which was allegedly fabricated.
The investigation revealed that two sets of invoices and packing lists existed for six consignments, including the one seized at the airport. The documents submitted to customs authorities were allegedly forged and inconsistent with the genuine invoices and packing lists retrieved during the search.
The total assessable value of the consignments under scrutiny was calculated at ₹1,11,15,965, indicating a substantial violation involving restricted imports.
Officers also seized a laptop belonging to a company manager, from which several incriminating emails and documents were recovered. According to investigators, the emails suggested deliberate attempts to mislead authorities regarding shipment details and documentation.
The High Court noted that the trial court had granted bail without seeking the investigating agency’s response despite the seriousness of the allegations.
Justice Kotwal observed that the magistrate had wrongly relied on the absence of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to justify the bail order. The Court clarified that such a notice is not required when the authorities intend to arrest an accused.
The Court also emphasized that Section 104 of the Customs Act provides a specific framework for arrests in customs offences and does not mandate such prior notice.
Importantly, the Court acknowledged that offences involving arms and ammunition carry heightened seriousness because they may affect national security and public safety.
The judgment implicitly acknowledged the diligent investigative work carried out by the DRI officers. Through intelligence gathering, detailed document analysis, electronic evidence retrieval, and coordinated searches, the agency uncovered what it described as a broader conspiracy involving misdeclaration, forged documentation, and possible diversion of ammunition components.
The Court observed that misleading emails sent to investigators and inconsistencies in documentation indicated deliberate intent, warranting deeper custodial interrogation.
The investigation also raised concerns about earlier consignments and possible larger-scale violations, further underlining the importance of continued inquiry.
The Court cancelled the bail and directed the accused to immediately surrender before the investigating agency.
The Court also rejected the accused’s request for 48 hours’ time to surrender, citing the gravity of the offence and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused might evade investigation.
Case Details
Case Title: DRI Versus Sanjay Vedrakash Soni
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.1168 OF 2025
Date: 28/11/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Asha Desai, Special Public Prosecutor
Counsel For Respondent: S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate
