Allowed

Pappu Kumar Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Inspector Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Office Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2024/2794/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application moving for release in a cheating charge involving smuggling of gold at the Lucknow Airport. The court granted bail after noting the applicant's humble background and lack of other criminal cases, while imposing strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each, subject to specified conditions.

Pappu Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India Thru. Inspector… — Customs and Excise | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31717

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2794 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pappu Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Inspector Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Office Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi,Azizullah Khan

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for D.R.I.

¶8

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case No. 21 of 2023, under Sections 135 (1) (i) A of the Customs Act, Police Station D.R.I., District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations, the applicant while alighting at the Lucknow Airport was questioned and he is said to be carrying gold which was hidden in three electric irons. Upon valuation, the the said gold was valued at Rs. 6,50,10,720/-.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is urged that from perusal of the recovery memo, it would not indicate what was the baggage which contained the alleged gold. It has further been pointed out that only household items and apparels were recovered from the applicant. The said three electric irons in which the gold was allegedly hidden, did not belong to the applicant.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant comes from a humble background. He had earlier visited UAE, but he never indulged in smuggling of gold. It has further been pointed out that apart from the instant case, there is no other criminal case against the applicant and though the complaint has been filed, but the trial has not yet commenced. The applicant has been in jail since 04.11.2023. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶12

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of

¶13

fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for D.R.I. while opposing the prayer for bail of the applicant has submitted that from perusal of the recovery memo, it would indicate that three electric irons were found in the baggage of the applicant which were quite heavy and on opening them, gold was found which was thereafter measured and valued at Rs. 6,50,10,720/-. It is further urged that since the applicant was caught with gold, hence in such circumstances, his bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid submissions and noticing the provisions of Section 104 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also the fact that the applicant comes from a humble background and there is no other criminal case against him and also finding that the complicity of the applicant is yet to be determined in trial where the allegations made against the applicant in light of the evidence yet to be lead can be firm enough to prove the charge against him beyond reasonable doubt as well as the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 4.11.2023, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Pappu Kumar Gupta involved in the abovementioned case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith and shall not leave the country without seeking the consent of the Court.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶21

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 Shravan

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pappu Kumar Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Inspector Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Office Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Kumar Gupta v. Union of India Thru. Inspector Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Office Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Sunder Singh Vs Board of Revenue and Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Radhe Raman Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Rohit Mandal vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ravindra Kumar Singh vs Addl. Commissioner, Aydhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Shyam Babu vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko.