As per the facts of the case, the petitioners Vijay Baid moved an application for grant of interim bail for 90 days before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur as per direction of Honorable the Supreme Court within the matter of Suo Motu Petition in Taint of Covid 19 Virus in prisons for releasing them for 90 days looking to this condition of Corona pandemic mainly challenging that the petitioners are involved in trading of gold and silver ornaments. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may consider that the petitioners have committed an economic offence that hampers the country’s economic process and would submit that the appliance filed by them be rejected.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly contending that insight of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition and the recommendation made by the High Power Committee, they're authorized to grant of interim bail for 90 days. it's prayed that this writ petition could also be permissible and therefore the petitioners could also be granted interim bail for 90 days.
The council for appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners aren't entitled to urge the protection of interim bail as they need not been filed regular bail application under Section 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, the interim bail application is additionally not maintainable. He would further submit that there's a remedy available under various provisions of Cr.P.C. aside from the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, further investigation for various offences under various Acts has also been initiated or likely to be initiated. He further submitted that as per notification dated 07.03.2002, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are going to be appointed as Customs Officers, and offence committed by the petitioners may be a severe economic offence and therefore the investigation is pending. They're not cooperative, they'll influence the opposite witnesses, therefore, they're not entitled to grant interim bail.
The single-judge bench while rejecting to grant bail said that the possibility of the accused /petitioners absconding or otherwise overcoming or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced, or of evidence being tampered, therefore, the petitioners aren't entitled to urge enjoy the order of the Supreme Court and therefore the recommendation of the High Power Committee.