M. Cr. C. No. 10825 of 2016. Case: Manish Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Indore. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberM. Cr. C. No. 10825 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Ankur Modi, Manish Kaushik and Romil Malpani, Advocates and For Respondents: Shri Jitendra Singh and Prasanna Prasad, Advocate General
JudgesJarat Kumar Jain, J.
IssueCustoms Act, 1962 - Sections 132, 135
Citation2017 (346) ELT 541 (MP)
Judgement DateNovember 10, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


  1. This is first bail application filed by applicant u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. The accused/applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No. 85/2016 registered at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Indore for the offence u/ss. 467, 471 of IPC; u/ss. 5, 9B, 9C of Explosives Act; u/ss. 5, 6 of Explosive Substances Act; and u/ss. 132, 135 of Customs Act.

  2. As per prosecution case, applicant''s company viz. M/s. Prestige Polymers Pvt. Ltd. situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Pithampur, District Dhar, imported the goods i.e. Fire Crackers; dietary food supplements; Emamectin Benzoate; and LED TVs. along with accessories. These goods were imported without valid import licence and under misdeclaration. Hence, the applicant has committed forgery and offence under the Explosive Act and Explosive Substance Act. Applicant has also evaded customs duty to the tune of more than Rs. ten crores.

  3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant''s company is doing the business in SEZ, Pithampur, hence the applicant can import the goods which are otherwise prohibited. The officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence have no authority to enter in SEZ and investigate the matter. There is no reliable evidence that the applicant has committed any offence. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation. He is detained since 5-10-2016 and the investigation will take considerable time to conclude. In such circumstances, applicant be released on bail. In support, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI - MANU/SC/1375/2011.

  4. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the applicant has tried to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT