Case Law Details
Manoj Singh @ Sardar Manoj Singh Son of Sardar Rameshwar Singh Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
In the case of Manoj Singh vs. Union of India, the Patna High Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner involved in a gold smuggling case. Singh, facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, claimed false implication and argued for bail based on precedents where similar requests were granted. He asserted that the confessional statements and cumulative gold seizure did not justify the denial of bail, especially since other accused in similar cases had received bail. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) countered that unlike previous cases, Singh’s application lacked substantial evidence proving legitimate gold dealings or a clear business background. The court, after reviewing the DRI’s arguments, concluded that Singh failed to meet the criteria for anticipatory bail, leading to the rejection of his bail application.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the D.R.I.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Economic Offence (Customs) Case No.361© of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(a) & 135 (1)(b) for violation of Sections 7, 46, and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, pending in the court of learned Special Judge Economic Offences-cum-Sub-Judge-1, Patna.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that as per Section 135 of the Customs Act, any seizure of gold made up to Rs.1 Crore is bailable but in the present case the petitioner has been implicated based on confessional statement and gold was seized from three different places and cumulatively it has been alleged that 1982.340 grams of gold was apprehended which was smuggled from Bangladesh. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to be implicated in the instant case based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. The learned counsel next draws the attention of the court to an order dated 29.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.72548/2023 (Raj Kumar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.) to submit that Raj Kumar was also implicated in the instant case based on confessional statement of apprehended accused but was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a learned Coordinate Bench, thus seeking parity, the petitioner also seeks anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the D.R.I. submits that perhaps what escaped the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Raj Kumar was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail after the learned co-ordinate Bench took into consideration all the material documents which were brought on record to demonstrate the he is a businessman and was dealing in gold and had purchased the gold and the biscuits after paying proper income tax, on the contrary, there is nothing in the present anticipatory bail application to even remotely suggest that as to what the petitioner does.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the D.R.I., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Author Bio
