Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1286 (GUJ)

Kushal S/O Pramodkant Nagar v. State of Gujarat

2025-11-17

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2025
ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala for learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt with learned advocate Ms. Khyati Chugh, appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Ms. Hetvi Sancheti for the Investigating Officer - respondent no.2 herein. 2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with DRI File No. DRI/AZU/GRU/INT-05/2025, registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Gandhidham Regional Unit, for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Jal Unwala would submit that the applicant is a businessman, who has imported rock salt from Dubai more particularly, from a firm in Dubai and whereas, learned Senior advocate would lay emphasis on a certificate issued by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce which, would show that the origin of the rock salt in question is from Iran. Learned Senior advocate would further submit that even the Company in question, from which the salt had been purchased had also certified that the rock salt had originated from Iran. Learned Senior advocate would submit that as against the same, the case against the applicant is that he had violated the instructions of the Union of India of not importing rock salt from Pakistan, which was carrying a higher duty till some point of time and whereas, the same had been prohibited later on. Learned Senior advocate would submit that as such the statement of the applicant had been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and whereas, at the first available opportunity, the applicant had retracted it. Learned Senior advocate would submit that the applicant being in custody since more than a month and whereas, while it is the case of the applicant that the salt in question had originated from Iran, it is the case of the department that the same had originated from Pakistan. Learned Senior advocate would submit that the applicant being in custody since more than a month and whereas, while it is the case of the applicant that the salt in question had originated from Iran, it is the case of the department that the same had originated from Pakistan. It is submitted that the applicant having gone on the word of the seller, and whereas since as far as the remand period of the applicant is over and he is in judicial custody and whereas, it being open for the department to take out proceedings for imposing of the penalty, there is no requirement of keeping the applicant in custody anymore more particularly, there is no apprehension for the applicant to flee from the trial in the proceedings therefore, he may be consider for being released on regular bail. 5. As against the same, learned advocate Ms. Sancheti for the department would vehemently oppose the same. Learned advocate would rely on the investigation papers and would submit that the applicant was aware that the rock salt in question had originated from Pakistan. Learned advocate would submit that the applicant knowing that the same carried a higher import duty and/or the same had been prohibited, later on, had indulged in mis-declaration evading regulatory duties and deliberately engaged in illegal trade from a country from which it was prohibited. Learned advocate would submit that as such, based upon the Sec.108 statement of the applicant, as well as the electronic devices of the applicant which, have been seized by the I.O., prima facie material has been established showing that the applicant was well aware that the goods in question had originated from Pakistan and were routed through Jebel Ali Port, Dubai, to India, to the present applicant. Under such circumstances, it is requested that this Court may not interfere. Learned advocate would further submit that the devices of the applicant have been sent for retrieving the data and whereas, upon the data being retrieved, the I.O. would be at liberty to once again summon the present applicant including liberty to seek custody of the present applicant if required. Learned advocate would submit that as regards the certification by Dubai Chamber of Commerce, the same being based on self certification. 6. As against the same learned Senior Advocate Mr. Learned advocate would submit that as regards the certification by Dubai Chamber of Commerce, the same being based on self certification. 6. As against the same learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala would submit that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by whatever condition this Court may impose and whereas, he would remain present before the I.O. as and when required. 7. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mehta appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed. 8. Having regard to the fact that the applicant has prayed for grant of regular bail, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:- i. The case against the applicant more or less based upon the Sec.108 statement and the applicant having retracted the same at the first available opportunity; ii. The custody period of the applicant being over and whereas, the I.O. having retrieved all possible material from the custody of the present applicant; iii. The case of the applicant being the goods in question (rock salt) having originated from Iran, more particularly as informed by the seller and whereas, the applicant had no reason to dis- believe the seller; iv. The fact of the authorities being entitled to question the present applicant or take out proceedings against the present applicant for evasion of duty and whereas, releasing the present applicant, causing no apprehension as about the applicant fleeing from justice or trying to tamper with the investigation; This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 . 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 11. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as DRI File No. DRI/AZU/GRU/INT-05/2025, registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Gandhidham Regional Unit on executing a bond of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.; [f] to mark his presence once a week till the complaint is registered, once a month thereafter for a period of six months; 12. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 13. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 14. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicant for being released on regular bail. 15. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.