Karnataka High Court
Directorate General Of Central Excise vs N Santhosh Kumar on 5 March, 2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7523/2017
BETWEEN:
Directorate General of Central
Excise, West Block-VIII,
Wing No.6, 2nd Floor, R.K.Puram,
NEW DELHI - 110 066.
(Renamed as Directorate General
Of Goods and Service Intelligence). .. PETITIONER
(By Shri N.V.Prabhakaraiah , CGSC)
AND:
N.Santhosh Kumar,
S/o M.V.Narayanappa
37 years, R/at 1st Cross,
R.T.Nagar,
Kolar. .. RESPONDENT
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) Cr.PC
by the advocate for the petitioner praying to cancel the bail
order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar dated 3.7.2017 which is produced at Annexure-A insofar
as allowing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.413/2017
filed under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code by the
respondent granting the anticipatory bail for the offence under
Sections 9, 9A, 9AA of Central Excise Act.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following :-
ORDER
Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent.
2. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent by allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.413/2017. The respondent apprehending his arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 9, 9A, and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail and that the learned Sessions Judge being satisfied with the apprehension of arrest expressed by the respondent, granted anticipatory bail for a period of three months. Seeking cancellation of the order dated 3.7.2017, this petition is filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the trial court should not have granted anticipatory bail to the -3- respondent as no case was registered against him. He also argues another point that the order impugned is not a speaking order.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent argues that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the petition for anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances placed before him as there was threat of arrest of the respondent. Placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, the Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail even though a FIR was not registered against the respondent. He further argues that this petition is not maintainable.
5. Having heard both sides, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has passed a speaking order. For granting anticipatory bail, reasonable apprehension of being arrested is enough. If in the facts and circumstances, the respondent had fear of being arrested -4- and moved the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail and that the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail having regard to those circumstances, there is no illegality in it. Moreover, the impugned order was passed on 3.7.2017. It was made clear that the said order would be in force for three months from the date of the order. It was also made clear that if the petitioner was not arrested within the said period, it would become infructuous. Therefore, it can be said that the Sessions Court has applied its mind at the time of passing the impugned order.
6. In this petition, it is clearly stated that only summons was issued to the respondent. It appears that this petition is unnecessarily made. Even according to the Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner-Department has no intention to arrest the respondent. If this is the case, it is not understandable as to how the interest of the petitioner has been affected just because the Sessions -5- Court granted anticipatory bail for a period of three months. Even otherwise, the petitioner could have approached the Sessions Court itself for cancellation of the anticipatory bail as Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests the Sessions Court also to modify its order.
In this view of the matter, the petition is merit-less and therefore it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv