Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence v. Vikas Raghunath Padekar

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2025.02.20 19:59:43 +0530 KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2025 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2025 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ..... Applicant

VERSUS

Swapnil Nandakishore Salunkhe ..... Respondent ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 80 OF 2025 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ..... Applicant

VERSUS

Vikas Raghunath Padekar ..... Respondent Ms. Nitee Punde a/w. Mr. Ram Ochani, Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar for the Applicant in all applications. Dr. Sujay Kantawaka a/w. Ms.Ayushi Jha, Mr. Mohsin Ghaniwala i/b. Mr. Avinash Limbola for the Respondent No.1 in Appln. No. 80 of 2025.

Ms. Deepali Bagla i/b. AH Legal for the Respondent No.1 in Appln Nos. 78 and 79 of 2025.

Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P. for the State.

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2025 P.C. :-

2/3 These applications are filed for cancellation of the anticipatory bail applications granted by the Sessions Court on 30th October, 2023. The present applications are filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

2.

There is no dispute that the goods they are called as areca nuts has been seized by the Department. Therefore, there is no question about recovery of the goods. The only issue which remains would be the bottle seal of the container which are not found by the Department. Hence, the present matter is limited only to that extent.

3.

On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the name of the respondent does not appear in the bill of lading. Therefore, there is no question of seal being with them. 4.

This Court by its order dated 7th May, 2024 had directed the respondents to attend the office of the Investigating Officer on

3/3 every Friday till the next date and co-operate with the investigation. There is no dispute as of today on the fact that the respondents have attended the office of the Investigating Officer and have co-operated with the investigation. The passport of one of the respondent has been handed over to the Investigating Officer. As far as another respondent is concerned, he does not hold the passport. Therefore, there is no question of handing over the passport. It is submitted that Mr. Swapnil Nandakishore Salunkhe even today does not hold Indian passport. 5.

Considering that large number of anticipatory bail applications are pending before this Court which needs to be heard on priority basis, this matter is adjourned for a period of four weeks from today.

6.

Stand over to 20th March, 2025.

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]