CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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