Case Law Details
Lupita Saluja Vs DGGI (Delhi High Court)
It is not in dispute that on the day the impugned order has been passed, the said Judge granted regular bail to the husband of the applicant after spending nearly 50 days in custody who is the person involved in day-to-day affairs of the company, however, dismissed the anticipatory bail of the applicant.
It is also not in dispute that the applicant and her husband were called for investigation by the Investigating Agency/Department on 10.12.2020 and their statements were duly recorded. Husband of the applicant was arrested but applicant was released on the same day.
Admittedly, the export made by the companies of the applicant in crores of rupees. The Investigating Agency has conducted as many as 5 raids including the residence and office premises of the applicant and seized the evidence such as original documents, purchase and sale invoices, ledgers and Bank Statements, hard disks, CPU, export details, etc.
It is not in dispute that the W.P.(C) 10013/2020 and W.P.(C) 10014/2020 and W.P.(C) 10015/2020 filed by the applicant, challenging the powers of seizure, arrest, etc. However, the applicant was never called upon to join the investigation in about 1 year, but called first time i.e. after her husband and she had challenged the entire investigation before this Court in the abovementioned writ petitions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
