- (1.) CRL.M.C. 2577/2015 1. Vide order dated 30.06.2015, this Court passed the order as under:- "1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby setting aside the order dated 29.06.2015 passed in cases titled as DRI v. GuoZhisheng and DRI v. Jiang-Xichao. 2. It is averred in the instant petition that Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zone Unit, New Delhi had recovered and seized six Gold bars of 999.9 purity collectively weighing 6 Kg. from respondent no.1 who arrived at Terminal-3 of IGI Airport, New Delhi from Hong-Kong by Cathay Pacific Flight CX-695 on 10.06.2015 at 20.55 hours along with respondent no. 2. Their respective statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were recorded on 11.06.2015, wherein they admitted that they have brought these six Gold bars of 1 Kg. each concealing inside the four packets of fake mobile phones / power banks for the purpose of smuggling through green channel without declaring the same to the custom authorities. Thereafter, both the respondents have filed bail applications, however, the same were dismissed on 18.06.2015. 3. Thereafter, respondents moved second bail applications on 24.06.2015, which were accepted and they were granted bail on 29.06.2015. 4. Mr. Satish Aggarwal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was no change of circumstances from 18.06.2015 till 29.06.2015, when the respondents were granted bail. The ld. Trial Judge has wrongly noted that the investigation is complete and the petitioner does not require any custodial investigation. Whereas in reply to the application dated 24.06.2015, the petitioner has specifically stated that enquiries are on and in fancy. 5. Mr. Aggarwal further submits that whether the respondents have any link in India for smuggling purposes or they are involved in previous smuggling activities, this aspect can be ascertained only when they are in judicial custody. Moreover, they are foreign nationals and if they are released on bail, there is every possibility of fleeing from India. 6. Moreover, reply to the application dated 24.06.2015 reveals that importing of the Gold is not allowed and the respondents have smuggled the Gold without declaring the same and thus involved in smuggling activities."
(2.) By recording the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Department, Mr. Satish Aggarwala, this Court stayed the order dated 29.06.2015 and the petition was directed to be listed on 17.07.2015, after serving notice upon the respondents. In the meanwhile, respondents preferred an application being Crl. M.A. No. 9399/2015 seeking eviction of the stay order dated 30.06.2015 granted by this Court. Thereafter, reply to that application has been filed by the petitioner. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
(3.) Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Department, while referring to his reply submits that the Department has assured this Court expeditious conclusion of the enquiry/investigation, filing of the complaint and producing prosecution witnesses on day to day basis. No adjournment shall be sought by the prosecution. Moreover, the respondents had not cooperated with the investigating agency. Investigation is still pending. Respondent no.2, inter alia, admitted that he had been smuggling gold earlier. During enquiries under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, he did not furnish the particulars of Indian national, in Hon Kong, for whom he had been smuggling gold into India. He also did not disclose the recipients/s of smuggled gold in India.;