Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajay Agarwal vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence on 17 May, 2018
Author: Shivakant Prasad
Bench: Shivakant Prasad
1 17.5.2018
p.b.
Ct. No. 33
CRM 2486 of 2018 Ajay Agarwal vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Kolkata Zonal Unit Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar, Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Mr. A. Dey, Mr. P. Roy.
......For the petitioner.
Mr. Kaushik Dey.
......For the DRI.
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner. By an order dated 19th April, 2018 the prayer for bail in connection with Case No.C- 562/2018 dated 6th April, 2018 was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas under Section 104 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner prays for release inter alia, on the ground that he as a valid and lawful exporter as he has been issued a "Certificate of Importer -Exporter Code" by the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. The petitioner is in custody since 6th April, 2018. It is specifically pointed that that this petitioner has been arrayed as an accused 2 along with his brother namely, Sanjay Agarwal and his nephew namely, Preet Kumar Agarwal on the basis of a complaint of D.R.I. alleging commission of offence under Section 104 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act. It has been alleged that 1194 pieces of gold bangles were recovered from him amounting to Rs.16,10,43,792/- and that his said brother and nephew has made admissions in their statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. This relates to the case in respect of the investigation into diversion of gold jewelry from Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport after completion of export procedure, the jeweleries in hand bags were all diverted. The report of the investigating officer prima facie reveals that this petitioner is involved in with co-accused persons in diverting the gold bangles and jewellaries under seizure after export procedure which are undoubtedly liable to confiscation under the provision of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1963.
Having considered the stages of the investigation, the statement so made and the case diary and the gravity of the offence, the prayer for bail is at this stage rejected. Thus, the application stands dismissed.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)