The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the person accused of gold smuggling.
The bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh has observed that the applicant cannot be given the benefit of anticipatory bail because he did not join the investigation in spite of repeated summons issued to him. The applicant also has a criminal history of the same nature.
Background
The Commissioner of Customs has filed a complaint against the applicant and co-accused persons under Section 135 of the Customs Act before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Indore stating that the applicant is the mastermind behind the smuggling of 5 Kgs of gold and brought from Mumbai by vehicle which was registered in the name of his brother Shri Gourav Garg. It is alleged that the applicant’s 5 kgs gold was seized from Harnam Singh Dangi, Suraj Sharma & Rajkumar sitting in the car.
The applicant contended tha he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime at the instance of the complainant. During the investigation of the vehicle, Harnam Singh Dangi, Suraj Sharma, Rajkumar sitting in the car and carrying 5 kg foreign origin gold bars in their vehicle.
During interrogation, it was alleged that the applicant and his brother had given cash of Rs.2,20,50,000/- to Harnam Singh Dangi to collect. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. The power of arrest vesting the officers of Customs under Section 104 of the Customs Act, cannot be exercised after the Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 135 of Customs Act. Investigation is over and the gold in question has already been confiscated and an appeal is still pending before the Appellate Authority.
The applicant contends that any offence which is triable by Magistrate and in which punishment of less than seven years is given and when during the investigation, the prosecution does not seek custody of the accused, after the Court has taken cognizance, there is no need to arrest.
The department contends that the applicant is very much involved in the present crime. He is one of the masterminds and kingpin of the case. The applicant cannot be given the benefit of anticipatory bail because he did not join the investigation in spite of repeated summons issued to him. The applicant also has a criminal history of the same nature. The anticipatory bail should not be given to the applicant.
Read More: PMLA | FIR Quashing Doesn’t Warrant Automatic Quashing Of ECIR: Madras High Court
Conclusion – Bail Denied For Alleged Gold Smuggling
The court noted that the vehicle used in the crime, was in the name of applicant’s brother Gourav Garg, only on the basis of that ground, the gravity of the offence cannot be mitigated. Actually, as per the allegation made in the case diary, there are evidence of allegations of committing offence, are prima facie emerging against the applicant.
The court rejected the bail application and held that the power of granting `anticipatory bail’ is extraordinary in character and only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person is falsely implicated or a frivolous case is launched against him or “there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail” that such power may be exercised. Thus, the power is `unusual in nature’ and is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial service, i.e. a Court of Session and a High Court.
Case Title: Madhur Garg @ Madhur Agrawal @ Madhur Bhaiya Versus Superintendent Of Customs
Case No.: Misc. Criminal Case No. 35700 Of 2024
Date: 11/09/202024
Counsel For Petitioner: Vivek Phadke
Counsel For Respondent: Prasanna Prasad
