Allowed

Sohan Goel v. Union of India Thru. Addl. Director Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2024BAIL/10133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by a gold trader arrested by DRI for alleged customs offence involving seized gold. Court noted complaint filed, charge not framed, applicant jailed since July 2024, offence punishable up to 7 years, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to stated conditions regarding trial attendance and non-misuse of liberty.

Sohan Goel Vs Union of India Thru. Addl. Director… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81777

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10133 of 2024 Applicant :- Sohan Goel Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Addl. Director Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ranjeet Kumar Pal,Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey,Dheeraj Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for D.R.I.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in DRI Case No. 13 of 2024, under Section 135 of Customs Act, Police Station DRI, Zonal Unit, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is having proper authorization for doing business of gold under the relevant provisions. It is also submitted that the applicant was bringing the gold to sell out, but the same was taken into custody by the authorities and implicated the applicant in a false case. It is next submitted that the complaint has already been filed on 09.09.2024, but till today, the charge has not been framed. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the alleged offences are punishable upto 7 years and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is lastly submitted that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 11.07.2024. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for D.R.I. vehemently

¶12

opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the applicant was carrying prohibited goods and the same was recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that a specially built cavity was also found in the vehicle of the applicant. It is also submitted that the offence of the applicant is a serious economic offence and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant, while replying to the submission of learned counsel appearing for D.R.I. in respect of the specially built cavity in his vehicle, submits that the applicant is in the business of sale and purchase of gold and, therefore, a cavity has been fixed in his vehicle for safe transportation of the gold.

¶14

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learnedcounsel appearing for D.R.I. and going through the contents of search and seizure memo as well as the complaint and other relevant documents, it is evident that the gold, which was recovered, is in the possession of the D.R.I. and the alleged complaint has already been filed on 09.09.2024. It is also evident that the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2024 and till today, the charge has not been framed. Further, the alleged offences are punishable upto 7 years. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Application stands allowed.

¶16

Let applicant -Sohan Goel be released on bail in DRI Case No. 13 of 2024 (supra), on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶19

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 office or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶21

(iv) 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 proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶22

(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. may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶23

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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.

¶24

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 VKS

¶26

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

Sohan Goel v. Union of India Thru. Addl. Director Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Goel v. Union of India Thru. Addl. Director Directorate Revenue Intelligence 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

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Kunwar Abhishek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sunil Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kanteshwar Mohan Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home Lko and Another

Atul Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others