Avijit Manna V. Union Of India Thru. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (Customs) Zonal Unit 2/31 Lko.

ABAIL/205/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Avijit Manna, who was implicated in a smuggling operation involving gold and cash, based on the statements of co-accused and without any direct evidence against him. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) intercepted two individuals on a train, leading to a series of searches and recoveries of gold and cash. Manna's name was included in the complaint primarily due to the statements of another accused, Sumit Rastogi. The court considered previous bail grants to co-accused and the lack of direct evidence against Manna in deciding to grant anticipatory bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799962 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
• Laws Referred To: Customs Act, 1962, CR.P.C.
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DIGVIJAY DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: ATUL VERMA; AKHILESH SINGH; MOHD RIZVI; VINOD YADAV
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Bail granted; Customs Act; Foreign origin; Gold smuggling; Recovery
• Section: 135; 438

Judgement Text

"Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21161 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 205 of 2025 Applicant :- Avijit Manna Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (Customs) Zonal Unit 2/31 Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Mohd Agha Haider Rizvi,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey learned counsel for Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 2. First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 06 of 2024 under Section 135 of Customs Act, P.S. D.R.I., District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of complaint, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) received a specific tip off and acting upon same intercepted two persons namely Hare Krishan Parai and Lal Mohan Panja on 20th February, 2024 at about 9.20 P.M. from the Pushpak Express Train from Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow with 558.900 Grams of gold allegedly of foreign origin valued at Rs. 3.29 crores and cash amounting to Rs. 3.28 crores said to have been recovered. The complaint indicates that the aforesaid two persons upon questioning revealed that they were travelling to Mumbai to deliver the said recovered notes and ornaments alongwith cash to its owner namely Ram Krishna Jaladhar Parai and his brother namely Laxman Chandra Parai. 4. The complaint also indicates that as per information received by the said two persons, the premises of the said owners were searched where 700 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs.3.69 crores was also recovered. It is also indicated that on the statement of the said persons, another accused Sumit Rastogi was named and his premises were also searched whereafter 26500 grams of gold jewellery was also found in a locker valued approximately at Rs. 12.43 crores. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that even as per allegations levelled against the complaint, the applicant is neither the owner carrier of the aforesaid gold ornaments and cash and his name in fact has been included in the complaint only on the basis of statement of the said Sumit Rastogi. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no recovery from the applicant. 6. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the fact that prime accused Ram Krishna Jaladhar Parai and his brother Laxman Chandra Prai have subsequently been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7983 of 2024 and 11304 of 2024, although their earlier anticipatory bail applications were rejected. It is submitted that the other two persons namely Lal Mohan Panja and Hare Krishana Parai have also been enlarged on bail by this Court in bail application No. 12015 of 2024 and other person Sumit Kumar Rastogi has also been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3594 of 2024. 7. It is therefore submitted that there is nothing of any substance against the applicant and even otherwise provisions of Section 135 of Customs Act 1962 are inapplicable. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party has refused submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with submission that aforesaid aspects clearly indicate an attempt to smuggle foreign made gold in which complicity of complaint can not be denied. It is submitted that applicant has clearly been named by co- accused Sumit Rastogi from whom gold of foreign origin was recovered. It is however admitted that no recovery was effected from the applicant. He has also adverted to the fact that earlier anticipatory bail applications of the main accused Ram Krishna Parai and Laxman Chandra Parai were rejected and have thereafter been granted regular bail by the court. 9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that aforesaid aspects have been dealt with in detail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7983 of 2024, Ram Krishna Jaldhar Parai versus Union of India and others and has recorded a prima facie satisfaction with regard to Sections 135 of the Customs Act to the effect that a person can be punished for the limited offence if ingredients of the said sections are made out which prescribe a maximum sentence of upto 7 years. The order also indicates the fact that the recovery seems to be of the firm Messrs Ram Laxman and Company which is a proprietorship and duly registered with GST & NSMP. The order also adverts the income tax and GST return of the firm. Prima facie satisfaction also has been recorded that quantum of business generated by the firm can gave rise to the turn over as suggested and the said owners of the firm may have sources to justify availability of quantity of gold and jewellery recovered. 10. It is in these circumstances that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aforesaid aspects has recorded a finding that charge under section 135 of the Customs Act is yet to be established in trial and since the maximum punishment which can be made applicable is upto 7 years, has granted bail. 11. Considering aforesaid aspects as well as the fact that there is no recovery made from the applicant and the complaint having already been filed against the applicants, and considering judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, this court finds that the applicant is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows :- \"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.\" \"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.\" 12. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. 13. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Avijit Manna shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant 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 such facts to the court or tamper with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. The application stands allowed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "