BAIL APPLN./2380/2017 of KAMLESH SONAGELA Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 2380/2017KAMLESH SONAGELA..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rishi Bhuta, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr.TusharAgarwalandMs.AashitaKhanna, Advs.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Satish Aggarwala and Ms. PoojaBhaskar, Advs.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%28.02.2018

By this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed forgrant of anticipatory bail, in case registered by Directorate of RevenueIntelligence vide DRI No. DRI/HQ-GI/338/XIV/ENQ-9/INT-NIL/2016.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is NRI.Presently, he is working in Dubai.Petitioner has been named by the co-accused Bhavesh Jethmalbhai Thakkar, who is also cousin of petitioner. As perthe respondent co-accused, in his statement under Section 108 of the CustomsAct has stated that petitioner had financed import of cigarettes. One accusedhas already been arrested and subsequently granted bail since complaint wasnot filed within the stipulated time.The other co-accused has been grantedanticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. There is apprehension of

arrest of the petitioner. Petitioner is willing to join the investigation/enquiry.Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, on the basis ofintelligence report, goods in respect of Bills of Entry No. 6590672 in the nameof M/s Ganpati Overseas lying in ICD, Dadri, U.P. were examined which led torecovery and seizure of 57,60,000 sticks of cigarettes valued at `6,91,20,000/-.Cigarettes were notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962vide Notification No. 103/2016-Customs (N.T.) dated 25[th]July, 2016.TheCigarettes were illegally imported by concealing behind the boxes containinginsulating flexible tubes valuing `15,63,396.45. The goods were seized videpanchnama dated 3[rd]September, 2016.Co-accused Bhavesh JethmalbhaiThakkar was arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. In his statement under Section 108 of the CustomsAct, the said accused named the petitioner. He stated that he, petitioner and co-accused Apurva thakkar had hatched conspiracy for smuggling the cigarettesfrom Dubai to India in the form of Insulated Rubber Tubes.

It is further submitted that summons were issued to petitioner underSection 108 of the Act for making enquiry but petitioner has avoided to join theenquiry.There is no immediate apprehension of arrest of petitioner, thus,present bail application is premature. It is further the case of the respondent

that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition asthe goods were seized in Dadri, inasmuch as, co-accused was produced inDistrict Court Gautam Budh Nagar. Offence is committed in Dadri, inasmuchas complaint would be filed in the same court, thus, this court has nojurisdiction to entertain this application.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that anticipatory bailhas been granted by the trial court to co-accused without any jurisdiction.Apetition has already been filed against the said order which is pending in thiscourt.

I need not go into the question of territorial jurisdiction at this stagesince present bail application is otherwise premature in view of the specificstand taken by the respondent in its reply that there is no immediateapprehension of arrest as petitioner has been summoned for enquires to bemade under Section 108 of the Customs Act.Accordingly, bail application isdismissed. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

FEBRUARY 28, 2018ga

A.K. PATHAK, J.