1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5372 OF 2009 Suhas Khabiya .. Applicant V/s The Central Government & Anr. .. Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishranti Nawale for the applicant. Mr. D.N. Salvi for respondents. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 6TH JANUARY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard both sides. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail. 3. The applicant had previously applied for bail to the Sessions Court. However, that application was rejected on the ground that 2 there was no apprehension of arrest. Today, when asked, learned counsel for the respondents states that investigation is in progress and if anything is revealed against the applicant, the respondents would arrest him. In view of this, the application is required to be considered on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits there has been a large scale evasion of duty and one Mr. Mohite has already been arrested in connection therewith. As the offence is an economic offence, bail should not be granted to the applicant. 5. Previously, the applicant was carrying on business of packaging which attracted excise duty. The business in Maharashtra was closed and shifted to Gujarat. That business was also closed and according to the applicant, he is not presently carrying out packaging business. He was also not carrying out the business between 3 June 2008 and June 2009 when the offence of evasion of duty is alleged to have taken place. There is no evidence that the applicant was carrying out the business during the relevant period. The case of the respondent is that one Mr. Mohite, who was formerly an employee of the applicant, was carrying on the business of packaging for which excise duty was payable. Mr. Mohite had not paid the excise duty and therefore Mr.Mohite has been arrested. During the course of investigation, it was disclosed that one jeep formerly belonging to the applicant was found in possession of Mr. Mohite and therefore the respondents suspect that the applicant is involved in the business. 6. According to the applicant, the jeep was sold by him to Mr. Mohite. Though the jeep was not transferred in the name of Mr.Mohite immediately, it has since been transferred in the name of Mr. Mohite. In any event, mere possession of a jeep, which was formerly owned 4 by the applicant, by Mr. Mohite would not, by itself, connect the applicant to the crime of evasion of excise duty. There is no other material connecting the applicant to the crime of evasion. 7. The alleged offence is punishable with minimum imprisonment of 6 months and maximum of 7 years. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that despite summons, the applicant has not attended the office and has thereby committed an offence punishable under section 174 of the I.P.C. and therefore pre-arrest bail should not be granted. Offence under section 174 of I.P.C. is bailable and therefore that cannot be a ground for refusal of pre-arrest bail in connection with other offence. 5 9. By an interim order dated 11th December 2009, this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Kanade) granted interim protection to the applicant, but directed him to attend the excise office for the purpose of recording of statement. The order has been complied. The applicant attended the excise office on three occasions and his statement has been recorded, copy of which has been handed over to me for inspection by the learned counsel for the respondents. Statement running into 13 pages has been recorded. This shows that the applicant has attended the excise office and answered most of the questions though on some of the questions he sought time for production of documents. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is willing to attend the office of the respondents for further questioning as and when required. In view of this, in my view, the applicant can be granted conditional bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- 6 ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with the offence of evasion of excise duty between June 2008 and June 2009 (crime registered against Mr. Mohite), he shall be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall attend the excise office from 11th January 2010 to 16th January 2010 everyday between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. and shall thereafter attend the excise office as and when specifically summoned by the respondents. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not in any event influence Mr. Mohite. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)