Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kapil Shroff vs Additional Directorate General on 9 December, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 Form No. J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDCITION APPELLATE SIDE Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRM No. 3350 of 2012 With CRAN No. 3158 of 2014 With CRAN No. 3159 of 2014 Kapil Shroff
-vs-
Additional Directorate General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence For the petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Anurag Bagaria For the DRI : Mr. Kaushik Dey For Union of India : Mr. Kausik Chanda, Ms. Debamitra Bhardwaj Heard on:- 12th November 2014 Judgment on : 9.12.2014 The petitioner was arrested in connection with a case relating to an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act. After his prayer for bail was declined by the Learned Chief Metropolitan 2 Magistrate, Calcutta, he approached the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and was released on bail subject to the following conditions,
(i) He will not leave territorial jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal without the permission of the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit,
(ii) The accused/petitioner will surrender his passport before the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit with immediate effect,
(iii) The accused/petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unitas and when call for and
(iv) The accused/petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts of the case to the said Officer or the Court.3
Thereafter the petitioner moved CRM No. 3350 of 2012 before this Hon'ble High Court praying for recalling of all the conditions subject to which he was granted bail. It appears from the said order annexure-C to this criminal revision, in support of such prayer it was urged not only the Apex Court has declared the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable but also according to one of its earlier decision, while granting bail in connection with a case involving bailable offence, it is not permissible to impose any condition. However, that co-ordinate bench of this court, before which the said matter came up for hearing, by its order passed on March 7, 2012 being annexure-C to this application, without accepting the contention of the petitioner, relaxed the only condition, whereby the petitioner was directed not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal without the permission of Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit and refused to waive the remaining other conditions.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved another application being CRAN No.437 of 2013 in connection with his earlier application for relaxation of condition of bail, with a prayer for 4 withdrawal of the remaining conditions on the self-same argument as was made before the previous bench that the offence involved is a bailable offence and it is beyond the authority of the court to impose any condition while granting bail in connection with such a case. However, this time also the court did not accept his contention and instead of removing those conditions by its order passed on May 14, 2013, vide annexure-D to this application, only granted following interim relief, The petitioner shall be permitted to take back his passport from the concerned authority to go abroad strictly only for a month according to his requirement subject to the following conditions,
i) He shall furnish his address and his telephone numbers as well as names of the persons to be contacted to collect his whereabouts in the countries he likes to travel.
ii) On every alternate day he shall contact over Cell-
phone number 9433034888 of Sri Suman Kr.
Gangopadhyay, Senior Intelligence Officer or in case of non-availability of Sri Gangopadhyay to Cell-phone 5 number 8902494206 of Sri Saibal Gupta, Intelligence Officer on every alternate day for tracking his movement and other purposes as the Investigating Authority may require.
Now, this application for appropriate order, in connection with the original application for relaxation of condition of bail, CRM No. 3350 of 2012 has been brought before this court once again praying for recalling of the remaining conditions of bail. The case of the petitioner, now also, rests on identical argument, which were made before two other co-ordinate benches. The learned advocate of the petitioner referred the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash -vs- Union of India, reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) and Vaman Narain Ghiya -vs- State of Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 281, it is submitted the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act is a bailable one and it is not permissible to impose any condition while granting bail in connection with a bailable offence. It is further submitted both the aforesaid benches of this court committed a grave mistake in refusing to quash the condition subject to which the petitioner was granted bail and it 6 would be more appropriate for this court to make necessary order in the light of the aforesaid two decisions.
This application is resisted by the learned counsel on behalf of the DRI.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Considered their respective submissions. Perused the records as also the decisions relied upon.
Having regard to the facts, earlier two other co-ordinate benches considering the self-same argument on merit did not incline to recall the conditions subject to which petitioner was granted bail and such orders have reached finality, the question of re- consideration of the same issue afresh on merit under the cover of passing appropriate order does not at all arise, otherwise there will be a conflict of decisions. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, was to approach the Higher Forum challenging the order passed in connection with CRM No. 3350 of 2012 on March 7, 2012.
However, if any order is passed allowing the petitioner to get back his passport for a limited period on the self-same conditions subject to which, earlier on May 14, 2012 by an order passed in connection with CRAN No. 437 of 2013, his passport was returned for 7 one month, there will be nothing wrong and none will suffer any prejudice.
Accordingly, it is directed this time his passport shall be returned to the petitioner for a period of four months on the self-same terms and conditions subject to which passport was earlier returned to him on May 14, 2012. The CRAN No. 3159 of 2014 accordingly stands disposed of.
The CRAN No. 3158 of 2014 also stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta for refund of the interest amount accrued against his deposit in accordance with law. Both the CRAN are disposed of.
Office is directed to supply Photostat certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Ashim Kumar Roy,J.) pk.
8