4 August 2020


High Court of Delhi

Monu Kapoor Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence




Accused is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail, when accused fails to join investigation on false pretexts or sham/farce excuses despite being given opportunities

The Petitioner has filed the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for the grant of anticipatory bail. In facts of present case, as per the status report, a seizure of gold was effected from a shop and Lease Agreement of the said shop was in the name of Monu Kapoor, the petitioner herein.

The statement of Rahul Kapoor, present in the shop at the time of seizure, was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he 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.

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.

There is no doubt that, the anticipatory bail may be granted, when there is material on record to show that, prosecution was inherently doubtful or where there is material on record to show that there is a possibility of false implication. However, when the element of criminality is involved; the custodial interrogation is required and/or the other aspects and facts are required to be unfolded in investigation, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

It is a well-settled law that, while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court prima facie has to look into the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the role of the accused. The Court is also bound down and must look into, while exercising its power to grant bail, the antecedents of the applicant and also the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, apart from his conduct in not joining and/or in not co-operating in the investigation along with other factors and parameters in view of the facts of each and every case.

A person who wants that the process of law should be followed, he should also follow and submit to the process of law. The facts of the case demonstrate that the petitioner, despite having been served with various show cause notices, has preferred not to join the investigation. The questions which arise for consideration, in these circumstances, are (i) if the accused has joined the investigation and he is not fully cooperating with the investigating agency and/or (ii) a person does not join the investigation on false pretexts or sham/farce excuses, then what should be done. Where the accused has failed to join the investigation on false pretexts or sham/farce excuses despite being given opportunities and/or is not fully cooperating with the investigating agency, the anticipatory bail application of accused should be rejected.

Hence, in view of the nature and gravity of the accusations, the stage of the investigation, the alleged role of the accused and the enormity of financial transactions to be investigated, severity of crime and resultant loss to the public as well as nation; non co-operation of the accused in the investigation and requirement of his custodial interrogation, present Court does not find any merit in the anticipatory bail application of the Petitioner. The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

Tags : Anticipatory bail Grant Gravity Accusations

Share :