Mumbai, August 18, 2022 – Sanghratna Anil Gajbhiye, a Customs Officer accused of involvement in a gold smuggling operation, has been denied bail by Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni. The court cited suspicious communication between the accused and other suspects, the lack of evidence supporting his claim of official duty, and the risk of evidence tampering as reasons for rejecting his bail application.

Gajbhiye was arrested in connection with a case involving the smuggling of gold. He was charged under Sections 135 and 136 of the Customs Act, which carry a maximum punishment of seven years imprisonment.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution argued that Gajbhiye, despite being a Customs Officer, was actively involved in arranging finances for the smuggled gold, which was seized from other accused individuals. They presented evidence of 920 phone calls exchanged between Gajbhiye and other accused, suggesting his involvement in the smuggling syndicate. The prosecution also highlighted Gajbhiye’s statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which they claimed was admissible and revealed his prima facie involvement.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Sachwani, representing Gajbhiye, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He claimed that Gajbhiye, as a Customs Officer, was actively working to apprehend the smuggled gold based on secret information. He emphasized that nothing was seized from Gajbhiye himself and that he had a good career with rewards from his office. He argued that there was no need for further custodial interrogation.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Kulkarni, after reviewing the documents and submissions, found several factors that weighed against granting bail.

• Suspicious Communication: The court noted the extensive communication between Gajbhiye and the other accused, which raised suspicion about his involvement.
• Lack of Evidence for Official Duty: Gajbhiye’s claim that he was acting in his official capacity lacked supporting documentary evidence or other circumstances.
• Role and Position: The court highlighted that Gajbhiye was posted at Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House with specific duties related to container scanning, which made his actions even more suspicious.
• Risk of Evidence Tampering: Given Gajbhiye’s position and the ongoing investigation, the court expressed concerns about the risk of evidence tampering and witness influence.
• Nature of Offense: The court recognized the serious nature of economic offenses and the potential for organized crime involvement.

“In such circumstances act of applicant creates suspicion about his involvement in the alleged crime. Maximum punishment for the offence punishable u/s.135 and 136 of Customs Act is imprisonment for 7 years. As investigation is in progress, therefore, taking into consideration role attributed to the applicant and his official position, I am of the opinion that there are chances of tampering of evidence by the applicant,” Judge Kulkarni stated in his order.

Consequently, the court rejected Gajbhiye’s bail application, ensuring his continued detention pending further investigation and trial.

Implications:

This decision underscores the court’s strict stance against granting bail in cases involving serious economic offenses, especially when there is a risk of evidence tampering. The court’s scrutiny of the accused’s claims and the emphasis on the lack of supporting evidence highlight the importance of thorough investigation and careful consideration of all factors before granting bail. This case also demonstrates that even public servants are not exempt from strict legal scrutiny when suspected of criminal activity.