The Patiala House Court has cancelled the bail of the accused who has the allegation of misusing green channel with Rs. 3.38 Cr luxury goods at IGI Airport.
The bench of Aparna Swami (ASJ) has observed that as confiscation can take place only after adjudication proceedings are completed, it is an incorrect understanding of the scheme of the Customs Act by the CJM that seizure is similar to confiscation and this can be a ground for grant of bail.
On 20.11.2024, while returning from Dubai, the respondent/accused allegedly misused the green channel facility and crossed the same without declaring dutiable goods of foreign origin, which included high-end watches and apparel of luxurious brands valued at Rs.3,38,26,000. The accused was apprehended by the Customs Department while crossing the green channel towards the exit gate of IGI Airport.
The respondent/accused is a frequent international traveler, and yet he deliberately chose not to declare the dutiable goods at the red channel. It is also alleged that when the Customs Department called the respondent, the respondent refused to provide relevant documents. The accused gave evasive replies during questioning. The accused filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 20.12.2024.
Considering the active involvement of the respondent/ accused in commission of a cognizable and non-bailable offence under the Customs Act, 1962, the respondent/accused was arrested on 26.12.2024.
The accused was granted interim bail. The Customs Department filed an application for cancellation of interim bail of the accused/respondent, but the same became infructuous as regular bail was granted to the respondent/accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
However, the accused was granted interim bail. The Customs Department filed an application for cancellation of interim bail of the accused/respondent, but the same became infructuous as, regular bail was granted to the respondent/accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
The Department of Customs has contended that the hasty grant of interim bail followed by regular bail, leaving the Department of Customs with only five days to investigate an offence of this nature did frustrate its efforts to find out whether the crime was actually commited, ascertain how the crime was committed, and to find out the accomplices wi aided the said crime. The number of watches and the quantity of goods being brought may indicate that the goods were not meant for personal consumption of the accused. It needs to be known as to who had sponsored the crime in case payment for the goods had not been made from the bank account of the accused when he made the purchases in the foreign country. So far, the said information has not been ascertained.
The accused would have to be confronted with the material collected during investigation including transactions carried out from his bank accounts. Electronic data would have to be collected and analyzed. The respondent, on being released on bail, could tip off his accomplices and and he has been in a position to tamper with evidence.
He has been afforded the chance, at a crucial juncture of the investigation, to destroy material evidence and help his abettors abscond.
The court held that where material aspects were still to be discovered, where investigation was at a delicate stage, in the opinion of this Court, the Court of CJM should have acted in restraint in the grant of bail. The grant of bail at that stage surely dented the efforts of the Department of Customs in collecting evidence.
The Court failed to take into consideration the circumstance that the respondent had refused to provide documents and the documents could not be recovered, as a result of which the search for the documents was still underway when the accused was granted bail and set free to destroy or remove the said documents. Evasive responses of the accused and he being elusive did not invite the attention of the CJM.
The court held that the CJM also failed to note that the respondent is involved in a serious economic offence which affects the economy as a whole.
The court held that the bail bonds of Aman Sahani are forfeited. The respondent Aman Sahani is taken into custody. he investigating officer shall also appear before the said Court and shall be at liberty to seek remand of the applicant in custody.
Case Details
Case Title: Customs Versus Aman Sahani
Case No.: M No. 63/2025
Date: 09/04/2025
Read More: Value Of Land Under Work Contracts Is Not Exigible To VAT: Karnataka High Court
