Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1662 (RAJ)

Gouri Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

2010-09-28

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Further, he has submitted that the offence alleged is punishable for three to seven years of imprisonment. He has also submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the goods in question and the checking of the same was not done in presence of the officers of Air Arabia. He has also submitted that taking into consideration the principles of granting of bail, there is neither any chance of absconding of the petitioner nor he would temper with the evidence, in case he is granted bail by the Court. In support of his submissions, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Anil Jain vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 131 (2006) Delhi Law Times 573 and Haroub Slaum Sleyoum vs. Shri Abdul Qadir, Bail Application No. 2520/08 decided by the High Court of Delhi on 13.2.2009. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 . 3. The prosecution has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the present case is not only a one relating to economic offences but it is of a serious nature where large quantity of Indian and foreign currency is involved, violating the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also submitted that the accused-petitioner is a habitual offender in relation to the provisions of the Act of 1962 and within a period of two years he had gone out of country for 17 times. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that from the facts of the present case as well as the evidence recorded during the course of investigation, it is amply clear that the petitioner has committed the offence alleged. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioner may not be granted bail and his application may be dismissed. 4. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by counsels for the rival parties. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioner may not be granted bail and his application may be dismissed. 4. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by counsels for the rival parties. The incident in the present case had taken place on 10.5.2010 when the petitioner had reached the International Airport at Jaipur for going to Sharjah by Air Arabia flight. The prosecution case against the petitioner, as revealed from para No. 3 of the complaint, is that the petitioner was carrying Indian currency of an amount of Rs. 58,50,115/-, foreign currency of 36300 Dirhams, 24090 Riyals and 255 Dinars. It is also the case of the prosecution that apart from the above, on search of the petitioner Indian currency of Rs. 115/- and foreign currency of 3950 Riyals, 130 Dirham and 700 US Dollars were found with him. As mentioned in para No. 3(a), (b), (c) of the complaint, it is the case of the prosecution that the aforesaid Indian currency and foreign currency were concealed in the two baggages which were brought back for the purpose of search, on a request being made to authorities of Air Arabia and when they were scanned and thoroughly checked, the currencies were found in the packets of eatable items such as `Papad'. According to the provisions of law, a person is not permitted, on his foreign tour, to carry Indian currency more than Rs. 7,500/-. 5. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it would suffice to say that they were in different fact situation, as for instances in the case of Haroub Slaum Sleyoum (supra) a foreign national was involved and foreign currency of US Dollars were seized from him. In the case of Anil Jain (supra), there was evasion of custom duty because dry fruits were exported without payment of the same. 6.Besides, I have perused the material on record including the information received from Assistant Commissioner of Customs, International Airport, Jaipur, the Panchnama, the Panchnama of search, dated 10.5.2010 etc. etc. In the case of Anil Jain (supra), there was evasion of custom duty because dry fruits were exported without payment of the same. 6.Besides, I have perused the material on record including the information received from Assistant Commissioner of Customs, International Airport, Jaipur, the Panchnama, the Panchnama of search, dated 10.5.2010 etc. etc. In view of the fact that a large quantity of Indian and foreign currency was found in the baggages and the person of petitioner which was in violation of law and the fact that he had been frequently visiting foreign countries and taking into consideration the principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the cases of economic offences are of serious nature because it goes to the root of the economy of the country, I am of the considered opinion that no case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.