Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3701/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3701 of 2011
=========================================
DIRECTORATE
OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE - Applicant(s)
Versus
LILARAM
ARJANDAS ASUDANI - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR SUDHIR NANAVATI for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 04/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
application is preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash and
set aside the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional
City Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Ahmedabad and to cancel the bail
granted to the opponent vide the said order dated 7.3.2011 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No.672 of 2011.
2. Learned
Assistant Solicitor General Mr. P.S. Champaneri submitted that the
offence alleged against the opponent is very serious and against the
economy of nation and the accused indulged in similar activities in
past also. He further submitted that the investigation is at a
crucial stage and accused may influence witnesses and/or tamper the
documentary evidences of the case. He further submitted that the
opponent – accused had violated the conditions of bail granted
to him in a past offence. Therefore, he has prayed to cancel the bail
granted to the accused by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge,
Court No.5, Ahmedabad.
3. Learned
advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, for the applicant has submitted that
considering the evidence produced on record, the learned Judge has
imposed conditions and till today, there is no any complaint from the
complainant about any kind breach of the conditions imposed in bail
application, on the part of the accused. He further submitted that
the learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the facts and
circumstances of the case, the applicant has been released on bail by
imposing suitable conditions. Present opponent is a permanent
resident of Ahmedabad and therefore, there is no possibility of
running away of the applicant or any kind tampering with the
evidence. Therefore, the application is required to be dismissed.
4. I
have perused the application along with the papers. I have also
considered the submissions made by the parties. From the perusal of
the papers, it appears that the present opponent – accused is
not main accused and looking to the role of this accused, he is an
importer as per the submission of Mr. Champaneri, learned Assistant
Solicitor General, but Mr. Nanavati, learned senior counsel has
denied the same. No doubt, it is a question of fact and that can be
considered by the learned Sessions Judge during the trial. At this
stage, I have verified the evidence, which are produced on record and
the statement of son of the present opponent – accused, but as
per the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, the statement
can only be considered as per the provisions of the Evidence Act
because the son is not accused in this matter and till today, there
is no any complaint from the complainant about any kind of breach of
the conditions imposed in the order of bail, on the part of the
accused. Therefore, there is no reason to cancel bail of the
applicant. Hence, I do not find any substance in the application. The
application is dismissed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
ynvyas
Top