BAIL APPLN.--2381/2019. Case: MONU KAPOOR Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. High Court of Delhi (India)
|December 11, 2019
|High Court of Delhi (India)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 3rd December, 2019
Date of Decision: 11th December, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2381/2019 & CRL.M.As. 36899/2019 &
MONU KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Ashutosh & Ms. Fatima,
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE
INTELLIGENCE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman,
Junior Standing Counsel with Mohd. Shaz Khan, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the status report are that, on 6.09.2018, a seizure of gold was effected from a shop situated at 34/3128, Gali No.34, Beadonpura, Block–P, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005 and Lease Agreement of the said shop was in the name of Monu Kapoor, the petitioner herein.
The statement of one Rahul Kapoor, present in the shop at the time of seizure, was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, called „Customs Act‟), wherein he, inter alia, admitted
to the facts that (i) the seized gold was of foreign origin; (ii) the smuggled gold was sold in lieu of cash only; (iii) no bills used to be furnished for the sale of smuggled gold and (iv) the shop was not registered with VAT/GST Department. He further disclosed that his uncle, Vijay Kapoor and his cousin, Monu Kapoor were partners in the said shop along with him and he used to share business details with them.
During the course of investigation, forensic examination of the mobile phones and laptop of co-accused Rahul Kapoor was carried out and certain material that incriminates Monu Kapoor was recovered. In the whatsapp chats of Rahul Kapoor, it was stated to have been, clearly established that he was involved in hawala payments and cash payments to Tilak Raj @ Pankaj Dhingra. It is stated that Pankaj Dhingra has criminal history of smuggling and is on bail in other cases of smuggling as well.
The petitioner, on 29.08.2019, was granted interim protection by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi from arrest in the application for anticipatory bail for the offences committed under Sections 174/175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
On 5.9.2019, the aforementioned application for anticipatory bail was rejected and the interim protection given to him was vacated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, primarily on the ground that he did not join the investigation despite repeated summons by the DRI and that he was intentionally avoiding to join the investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the Department‟s intentions are not bonafide vis-à-vis the petitioner, whom they intend to harass and humiliate by arresting him at any cost, contrary to settled principles of law. It is submitted that the initial statements of various persons, who were picked up along with the co-accused Rahul Kapoor from the Karol Bagh shop, demonstrate that petitioner was not named as the person, with whom they had any kind of transactions(s) and further that for ulterior motives, after seeing the Lease Deed, the co-accused Rahul Kapoor was made to write that the petitioner was one of the partners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the father of the petitioner was illegally picked up on 12.09.2019, without any summons/authorization, and then releasing him next day early in the morning, with the summons dated 12.09.2019 itself, asking him to appear at 6 p.m. on that day itself also reflects the mala fide intentions of the Department in this case.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the shop in question was taken on rent by the petitioner on lease for making jewellery, in which he could not succeed, because of which he wanted to surrender his lease. However Rahul Kapoor persuaded the said Monu Kapoor to transfer the lease in his favour orally and promised to pay the rent for the same, which he (Rahul Kapoor) intended to use for his business of local sale/purchase of gold.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that repeated summoning of the...
To continue readingRequest your trial