Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

Bail granted to 9 persons arrested along with 83 kg of gold-Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

D.D:-03 JUNE,2022

 

VAIBHAV SAMPAT MORE  versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER

Latest Legal News