Bail granted to 9 persons arrested along with 83 kg of gold-Delhi HC
D.D:-03 JUNE,2022
The Delhi High Court has ruled that under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, simple gold smuggling that does not threaten India’s economic security or monetary stability is not a terrorist act (UAPA).
Therefore, a Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna granted bail to nine men accused of involvement in the smuggling of 83.6Kg of gold seized at New Delhi Railway Station in 2020.
“…possession, use, production, and transfer of counterfeit currency or coin are per se illegal and constitute an offence, whereas production, possession, use, etc. of ‘gold’ are not per se illegal or a crime… Thus, gold smuggling that poses no threat to India’s economic security or monetary stability cannot be considered a terrorist act “the Court stated in its verdict.
The High Court was hearing the bail appeal of nine men arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in August 2020 for possessing more than 500 gold biscuits (83.6Kg). They were travelling on the Dibrugarh-New Delhi Rajdhani Express with fraudulent identification.
While eight of them — Raikiran Balaso Gaikwad, Saddam Ramjan Patel, Dileep Laxman Patil, Pawan Kumar Mohan Gaikwad, Avahut Arun Vibhute, Sachin Appaso Hasbe, Abhijeet Nand Kumar Babar, and Yogesh Hanmant Rupnar — were taken into custody on the spot by the DRI, the ninth — Vaibhav Sampat More
Later, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and charged the defendants with violations of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). In May 2021, their bail was denied by the lower court, which was a special court.
The appeals argued that the prosecution had no evidence against them other than statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which are inadmissible and cannot be considered in a trial under the UAPA.
Counsel argued that there was no evidence in the record indicating that the gold was obtained from a foreign source.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing on behalf of the NIA, referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending Section 15 of the UAPA by introducing Section 15(1)(a) (iiia).
According to him, the amendment was prompted by the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In the FATF’s report, it was clearly stated that gold is a universally accepted currency that can be traded anonymously, and that such transactions would pose a grave threat to the country’s economic security.
In light of the gravity of the offence, he argued that bail should not be granted to the appellants because they engaged in a larger conspiracy to commit a terrorist act by disrupting the country’s economic stability.
In the present case, however, no death has been caused, so Clause ‘b’ of Section 16 of the UAPA, which provides for a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment that may be extended to life imprisonment, will not apply.
It therefore granted bail to all of the defendants on the condition that they post a 1 lakh personal bond and surety. In addition, they were ordered to submit their passports to the trial court and refrain from leaving the country without prior authorization.
The appellants were represented by senior advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Mohit Mathur, as well as advocates Somesh Tiwari, Kartika Sharma, Chirag Madan, Kaveesh Nair, Rahul Raheja, Gaurav Prakash, Rohit Raheja, Supriya Shekhar, Tarun Khanna, and Vinayan Chithale.
The NIA was represented by ASG SV Raju, SPP Rahul Tyagi, and attorneys Aashish Chojar, Deepak Malik, Anshuman Singh, Ankit Bhatia, and Harsh Paul Singh.
VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE
versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER
