1
B.A. 404/24
MHCC020027572024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.404 OF 2024
Anirudh Krishnan Vaishnav
Age 37 years, Occ – Business,
Residing at C/27, Central Park,
North Avenue, Near Ubran Wood,
Vatika Infotech City, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur 302006.

… Applicant
– Versus 1. The Commissioner of Customs Special Investigation
and Intelligence Branch (Import)
10th floor, Annexe Building,
New Custom House Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 001.
2. Union of India
WRQH+C23, Maharshi Karve Road,
New Marine Lines, Churchgate,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 020.

… Respondents
Appearance :Adv. Sahil Salvi for the applicant.
SPP Punde for the respondent / State
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 29/02/2024
ORDER
This is bail application by the accused under Section 439 of
The Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection
2
B.A. 404/24
with File No. CUS/SIIB/INT/1/2024-SIIB-O/O COMMR-CUS-IMP-IZONE-I-MUMBAI for the commission of offences punishable u/sec.132
and Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2.

It is alleged by the applicant / accused that he is innocent
and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is arrested on
05.02.2024.

He
has
undergone
custodial
interrogation.

The
investigation is completed. The applicant / accused is the only earning
member in the family. There is no criminal antecedents against him.
Therefore, there is no point in keeping accused behind bars till
conclusion of trial. He is the permanent resident of his given address
therefore he prayed for releasing him on bail.
3.

The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply
vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if accused is
released on bail there are chances of flee from justice. If accused is
released on bail there are chances of threatening of prosecution
witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence, prosecution
prayed for rejection of the application.
4.

Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard
the ld. Advocate for the applicant, ld. SPP for the respondent.
5.

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant is one of
the directors of M/s. Big Boy Machine Pvt. Ltd. Said company is
engaged in the business of purchase and sell of second-hand cranes
from China. Said company has filed 33 bills of entry in past 2 years for
clearance of 38 units of old cranes. The goods were imported from
China. After importing, the cranes have been registered with transport
3
B.A. 404/24
authorities of different states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and
Haryana. The declared assessable value of goods in respect of 33 bills of
entry
was
Rs.28,63,07,873/-
and
paid
duty
thereon
was
Rs.7,94,07,489/6.

The Intelligence was gathered that importer is importing
such cranes by mis-declaring the year of manufacturing and capacity of
the cranes in order to undervalue the goods to evade custom duty. The
actual year of manufacturing is newer than the declared year of
manufacturing. The actual capacity was higher than the declared
capacity. There is mis-declaration of the year of manufacturing and
thereby it is alleged that the applicant has availed importer concession
in the depreciated value and thereby cause loss to revenue. According to
the prosecution it is also seen that the importer has tampered with
chassis number and details plate of the cranes. It is alleged that the
importers have evade custom duty to the tune of Rs.4 crore
approximately. Based on these allegations the applicant was arrested
u/Sec.104 (1) of the Customs Act 1962 for the offence punishable
u/Sec.132, 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, with allegation of
evasion of duty of Rs.4 crores approximately.
7.

The applicant was arrested on 05.02.2024. It is the
contention of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated. The
prosecution is based on assumption that cranes were imported and
there was no occasion for the applicant to tamper with chassis number.
and plates of details. The applicant also disputed his arrest contending
that there was no subjective to satisfaction about “reasons to believe”.
The advocate for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi and Ors. V/s. M/s. Synfab
4
B.A. 404/24
Sales etc. in Civil Appeal No.611 of 2009.
2. Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. Blue Blend (I) Ltd.
2004(173)EKT182(TRI-MUMBAI)
3. Md. Tauhid @ Kallu, Manoj Singh V/s. The State of Bihar in Cri.
Appeal No(S).721 of 2024
4. Nikom Copper and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India and
Ors. MANU/MH/1979/2020.
5. Union of India V/s. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Ors.
MANU/SC/4230/2008.
8.

I have gone through the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgments. They are relied upon in support of the argument that there
is mere suspicion raised against the applicant and there was no reason
to believe that the accused has committed any offence.
9.

I have gone through the arrest memo, it is specifically
noted by that during investigation it is found that the accused has role
in submitting mis-declaration about the cranes. It was found that actual
year of manufacturing is relatively newer than the declared year of
manufacturing. There is evasion of duty more than Rs.4 crores.
Admittedly the applicant is importer of old cranes. During the
investigation it is disclosed that year of manufacturing has been misdeclared. The capacity of cranes was also mis-declared. Actual capacity
is higher than which is declared. Actual year of manufacturing of the
cranes is newer than which is already declared. This fact has been
revealed at the time of registration of said cranes. In the investigation it
is also disclosed that there is tampering of chassis number and the
details of plates of the cranes. It is in respect of 26 cranes out of 38
cranes imported in the past, the importer has attempted to evade
5
B.A. 404/24
customs duty to the tune of Rs.4 crores approximately. The present
applicant / accused has been arrested recently on 05.02.2024. The
investigation is in progress. The investigation includes verification of the
documents
and
ascertainment
of
correct
details
of
year
of
manufacturing and capacity of cranes. Same is pending. There is
substantial allegation that chassis number and details plates of cranes
are tampered. Therefore, there is apprehension that if the accused is
released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence.
10.

It is the contention of the applicant / accused that as cranes
were imported, there was no occasion for him to tamper with the details
of chassis number and plate of details. Only the accused is the person
who has knowledge about said tampering and or source of said
tampering, because the applicant / accused is the ultimate beneficiary
fo the tampering. It cannot be considered that the exporter will tamper
with the chassis numbers and plates of details to gain any advantage for
him. It is rightly submitted that there must be some connection between
the applicant and the person from whom these cranes were imported. It
can not be believed that there was no written contract about the
transaction. In the Bail Application para No.6(Y) it is the contention of
the applicant that his personal record of Google account was
accidentally deleted by his employee. Said contention is not natural,
probable and acceptable. In para 6(X) the applicant admits that Whats
App and G-mail are his personal record and which he can keep or delete
in his own interest. Therefore, it is not acceptable that his personal
Google account was allowed by him to be handled by one of his
employee. Therefore, there is substance in the contention of the
prosecution that the applicant has intentionally deleted the information
in the form of email related to the transaction or contract of purchase of
6
B.A. 404/24
cranes. It is not acceptable and probable that there was no written
contract with the seller in respect of the cranes sold. Therefore, at the
initial stage of the investigation if the accused is released on bail, it will
hamper the investigation. There is material allegation of tampering of
chassis number and plates of details. The offence is economic offence.
Huge amount of customs duty is involved. Detail investigation is
necessary. There is material allegation about forgery as to the details of
chassis number and plates of details of the cranes. There is evasion of
duty of about Rs.4 crores. The case is at early stage of investigation.
There is allegation that forged documents were submitted. The
applicant is one of the source of knowledge related to the offence. If he
is released on bail it will hamper the progress of investigation. The
applicant has already deleted the evidence of email. There is
apprehension that he may destroy any material evidence. Under these
circumstance I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for the
bail at this stage. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
Bail Application No.404 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 29/02/2024
Dictated on
: 29.02.2024
Transcribed on
: 02.03.2024
Signed by HHJ on : 05.03.2024
( RAJESH A. SASNE )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

7
B.A. 404/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
05/03/2024
5.57 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A
Room No.)
Sasne, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 29/02/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
05/03/2024
ORDER uploaded on
05/03/2024