Mukesh Valecha vs. Superintendent Of Customs

ORDER Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in jail since 14.4.2022 in 2 connection with Crime No.INT-28 of 2022 registered at Police Station - Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Indore (M.P.) and Superintendent of Customs, Office of Commissioner of Customs, Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 135(1)(A) and 135(1) (B) of the Customs Act, 1962. As per the prosecution story, investigating authority got discreet information from the intelligence. Acting upon the said information investigating authority intercepted the vehicle bearing Registration No. MP07-CK-8887 near the Sonway Toll Plaza, Indore on 24.4.2022. During the search of the vehicle, officers of DRI found 3 yellow metal bars wrapped in papers from the specially built cavity under the seat adjacent to the Driver seat. On unwrapping the papers, it was found that on 2 gold bars “Valcambi Suisse” 1 kg gold 995.0 and on one gold bar “Essaycurfoundeur” was written and on one bar “AL ETIHAD GOLD Dubai – UAE 1 Kilo Gold 995.0 Melter Assayer” was written. By inquiring the person siting on the driver seat, the applicant informed his name as Shri Shankar Singh Yadav. The person sitting beside the driver seat was named as Vaibhav Jain and other two persons sitting behind named as Vishal Jain and Shri Dhiraj Rai. During the investigation the said 3 gold bars weighing 3 k.g. valuing at Rs.1,58,20,500/- and vehicle bearing registration number MP07-CK-8887 were seized and the accused Vaibhav, Vishal, Shankar and Dhiraj stated that they have no legal documents related to these gold bars and the bars are smuggled foreign origin gold bars and are being transported by them to Sagar. Vaibhav Jain and Vishal Jain also stated that they had purchased the above gold 3 bars from Mukesh Bhai and they gave him cash amount of Rs.1,56,60,000/-. DRI officials recorded the statement of accused persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly aforesaid offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons and they have been arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected vide order dated 18.7.2022 passed in MCRC No.30740/2022 passed by this Court but subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail, Joint Commissioner, Customs (New Delhi) has issued revised guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to the offence punishable under the Customs Act, 1962, wherein it has been stated that the arrest should be effected only in exceptional situations. The circular is Annexure P/4. The applicant’s Firm has paid GST of approx. Rs. 13 Crores and income tax of more than Rs.11 Lakhs. Investigation is over and the show-cause notice has been filed by the non applicant. No recovery has to be done from the applicant or anyone. Applicant has received only the commission of Rs.6,000/- in the entire transaction. No role has been attributed to the applicant for smuggling of the gold. Nothing has been recovered from his possession and no incriminating material was found from his possession. There is direct violation of Section 4 of Cr.P.C. The respondent cannot be permitted to thrust oral statements to build a case against the applicant. His paternal uncle has been passed away on 13.6.2022 and the entire family is going through difficult times. No role has been attributed to the present applicant for 4 importing the gold bars or committing smuggling. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected on merit and thereafter there is no material changes in the circumstances in which the applicant deserves for bail. Applicant is a habitual offender. The conduct of the applicant disentitles him from any relief as claimed in the application. The respondent has filed the complaint within the stipulated time. The offence is within the exclusive knowledge of the applicant. Office is serious in nature and also against the economy of the nation. Bail application of co-accused Shankar Singh Yadav has also been rejected by this Court in the similar circumstances vide order dated 18.7.2022 passed in MCRC No.32614/2022, therefore, the repeated bail application filed by the present applicant is devoid of any merit and may be dismissed accordingly. Perused the case diary and the impugned order passed by the court below. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also the fact that applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2022 passed in MCRC No.30740/2022 on merit after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant in this 5 repeated application was considered at the earlier occasion, therefore, there are no material changes in the circumstances in which the applicant is entitled for bail. Although after rejection of the earlier application of the applicant respondent has collected so many evidence including the call detail record. The revised guideline issued by the Joint Commissioner, Customs (New Delhi) does not support the case of the present applicant. Therefore, this court is not inclined to allow this repeated bail application. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is hereby dismissed. C.C. as per rules (Anil Verma)

Judge Trilok/- SAVNER Date: 2022.11.07 20:21:53 +05'30'