Gujarat High Court
Lookman Mohmed Yusuf vs Directorate Of Revenue on 22 September, 2017
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
R/CR.MA/23026/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION
(FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDERS)
NO. 23026 of 2017
In
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10895 of 2015
============================================
LOOKMAN MOHMED YUSUF ....Applicant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE
INTELLIGENCE & ANR ....Respondents
============================================
Appearance:
MR D K TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant
MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for Respondent No. 1
MR RASHESH RINDANI, APP for the Respondent No. 2
============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 22/09/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application for temporary suspension of the condition Nos. [c] and [d] of the regular bail granted to the applicant by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2016 recorded on Criminal Misc. Application No.10895 of 2015. The ground for seeking this liberty is the hospitalization of the father of the applicant at the United Kingdom.
2. The applicant is an accused and was in judicial custody in connection with File No.DRI/AZU-GI/01/INT-04/2015 registered by the Intelligence Officer, DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad with DRI Police Station, Ahmedabad for the Offences punishable Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 23 01:07:48 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/23026/2017 ORDER under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. He was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2016 recorded on Criminal Misc. Application No.10895 of 2015. While granting regular bail to the applicant, this Court had imposed, inter alia, the following conditions.
"[c] shall make himself available at the time of trial, and [d] shall surrender his passport to the Trial Court."
3. It is noted that similar application (with different cause) was made earlier, which was granted by this Court, and the applicant has not misused that liberty. Attention of this Court is invited to the orders passed by this Court dated 21.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No.15056 of 2016 and dated 19.02.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3034 of 2016.
4. Mr.Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has submitted that considering the earlier order passed by this Court, appropriate order be passed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, and considering the totality, this Court finds that, no useful purpose would be served by not modifying the conditions as prayed for by the applicant. This application therefore needs to be allowed. It is also noted that this Court had while allowing the similar application on 19.02.2016 noted in para:7.3 of the said order as under.
Page 2 of 4
HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 23 01:07:48 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/23026/2017 ORDER
"7.3 Prima facie, there is force in the argument of learned senior advocate for the applicant that, what is alleged against the applicant is, at the best, a case of bringing restricted goods and not the prohibited goods as per Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962 and further that, it is a compoundable offence in view of Section 137(3) of the Act. It is noted that, these are prima facie observations and the same are only for the purpose of deciding this application."
6. In view of above, the following order is passed.
6.1 This application is allowed.
6.2 The order passed by this Court dated dated 19.06.2016 recorded on Criminal Misc. Application No.10895 of 2015 is modified to the extent that condition No.[c] & [d] thereof which are quoted above, shall stand suspended for a period of six months. The passport shall be returned to the applicant by the concerned Court / Authority where it is lying and the same shall be returned to the applicant before expiry of six months from the date on which the passport is given to him. The condition directing him to make himself available at the time of trial, shall also stands suspended for the said period of six months.
6.3 The applicant shall return to India to face the trail on completion of the period of six months and on his return, he shall redeposit the passport to the Trial Court.
Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 23 01:07:48 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/23026/2017 ORDER 6.4 Rule is made absolute in above terms. Direct service is permitted. (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) M O Bhati/03 Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Sep 23 01:07:48 IST 2017