Mr. Amit Vipr v. The Senior Intelligent Officer,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-13. Mr. Amit Vipr v. The Senior Intelligent Officer,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33851 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:, 2127 oF 2026 Between: 1. Mr. Amit Vipr S/o. Hemanth Kumar Jha, Age: 39, Occ: Service Head of M/s Keess Technologies, C/o. A-35 B, Gali No. 2, Near Shanti Nursing Home, Vishwash Park, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi 110059. - 2. Mr. Karthik S/o. Rajendran, Age: 32, Occ: Senior Service Engineer of M/s Keess Technologies, R/o. M-74, Phase-3, Anna Nagar, Thiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu 620026. - 3. Mr. Jerald Starvin Joseph S/o. Jayaraj, Age: 45, Occ: General Manager of M/s Keess Technologies, R/o. 6/102, Kings Castle, Kondayapalyam, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu -641110. 4. Mr. Servin Anthonysamy S/o. Anthonysamy, Age: 24, Occ: Junior Service Engineer of M/s Keess Technologies, R/o. D. No. 83, 2nd street, 4th cross, Periyasamy layout, Coimbatore North, Tamil Nadu -641027. ...
Petitioners AND The Senior lntelligent Officer, Directorate of Revenue lntelligence, H. No. 10-2- 28915711 & 2, Suryavanshi Residency, ll X Road, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500028. - ... Respondent Petition under Section 482 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in File No. DRI/ZUI|NT/15612025-C on the file of the Senior lntelligent Officer, Directorate of Revenue lntelligence, Hyderabad in @nnection with the offence of non-payment of Anti-Dumping Duty on import of Laser welding Machines under Notification No. 015/2023-Customs (ADD) dated 22. 12. 2023 to the satisfaction of the respondent. This Petition r;oming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumehts of Sri S. Malleswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri T. V.
Subba Rao, Senior Sianding Counsel on behalf of the Rescondent. The Court made the following: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2127 OF 2026 DATE : 13. O3. 2O26 Between : Mr. Amit Vipr & three others Petitioners And The Senior Intelligent Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, H. No. lO-2289157 | & 2, Suryavanshi Residency, I II X Road, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 50O 028 ... Respondent : ORDER: This criminal petition is liled under section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with File No. DRl/zullNrlLS6/2O25-C on the file of of Revenue Intelligence, Senior Inteltigent Officer, Directorate Hyderabad. respondent issued 2. The facts of the case aie that the L962 directing summons under Section 1O8 of the Customs Act, 1O:3O a. m. before the the petitioners to appear on t7. 02.
2026 at f f -2- office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Suryavanshi Residency, Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, in connection with an inquiry relating to alleged mis-declaration of Laser Welding lVlachines imported from China for the purpose of evading linti-Dumping Duty and non-payment of such duty under l,lotification No. O 1,5|2023-Customs (ADD) dated 22. 12. 2023. In the said summons, the respondent required the petitioner:s to appear and give evidence and/or produce documents or things in their possession relating to the import of the said goods, and stated that the inquiry would be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 229 and 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and that non-compliance would attract penal consequences under Sections 2O8 and 2lO of the said Act. 3. Heard Sri S. Malleswara Rao, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. V. Subba Rao, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 4.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are merely employees working with M/s. Keesstech India Pvt. Ltd. , that they have no role in the import of the allegecl goods or in the payment of Anti-Dumping Duty, and I -3- that they neither oversee nor deal with the imported material. He further contended that provisions invoked in the summons are not applicable to them. Hence, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent opposed bail contending that M/s. Keess Technologies, a partnership firm dealing in industrial machinery, was importing laser cutting machines of Chinese origin by mis-declaring them as plasma cutting machines, CNC router machine beds, or similar equipment to evade Anti- Dumping DuW. Based on this information, a search was conducted on L2. 12.
2O25 at the hrm's premises in Coimbatore, during which several documents such as supplier catalogues, invoices, purchase orders, and electronic communications with overseas suppliers were seized. Examination of the records revealed discrepancies between the number of machines imported and those supplied domestically, and technical documents for the alleged plasma machines were not produced. Investigation also revealed that certain Chinese-origin laser machines were routed through Malaysia to avoid Anti-Dumping Duty. The importer admitted that about 36 laser machines I ; I -4- worth approximately Rs. 28. 53 crores were imported under the guise of machines or router machine beds, resulting in trrlasma an estimrrted duty evasion of Rs. 12. 56 crores. Summons was issued to the partners of the firm, and their statements were recorded in January 2026.
Forensic analysis of mobile phones belonging; to the partners revealed WhatsApp communications with the Chinese supplier directing them to change the descriptir>n of goods, conceal key components, modify nameplal. es, and alter documents to support the false declaratirn. The investigation indicated deliberate mis-declarati,on and manipulation of records to evade Anti-Dumping Duty. Based on the material collected, the partners were arrested on 13. 01. 2026 and later granted bail by the Special Judge tl:r Economic Offences with conditions. During the investiga. tion, summons was also issued to the petitioners as the partners stated that they were involved in converting the importecl plasma machines or router machine beds into laser machines. However, the petitioners sought time to appear and subsequently failed to appear before the Investigating Officer despite fresh summons issued directing them to appear on 17. 02. 2026.
He further contended that the role of t]le petitionr:rs in the alleged conversion of imported machines and I ryF { I -5- I petitioners are related activities is under investigation. The the material witnesses connected with the transactions under inquiry, their examination is necessary for investigation. The petitioners are not cooperating with the ongoing investigation as they have failed to appear before the investigating officer despite issuance of summons. Hence, petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail and prayed to dismiss this petition. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the petitioners have been issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the respondent authorities requiring their appearance in connection with the ongoing investigation.
lnstead of appearing before the authorities and cooperating with the inquiry, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present application seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest. The contention of the petitioners is that they are in no way connected with the alleged offences, that they are merely employees of the company, that the main accused persons have already been arrested, and that the petitioners have not been t I \ , arrayed aS accused as on date. On the other hand, the learned r I T Senior Standipg Counsel for the respondent contended that the -6- l. :. present application is premature, as the summons were issued only for the purpose of recording statements during the course of investi,gation and that appropriate steps would be taken only if the au. :horities are not satisfied with their explanation. It is further ,:ontend. ed that there are allegations against the petitioners that they were involved in manipulation of documents. 7.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, and considering that the petitioners have not been arrayed as accused ils on date and that they have an opportunity to appear before the ls5p. ndent authorities either in person or through an authorized agent and cooperate with the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail at this stag: as such, the same is liable to be dismissed- -,t g. Ac<:ordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed Mir;cellaneous petitions, if &oy, pending shall stand closed. SD/. M OSMAN ALI BAIG, STANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// \ \ SECTION OFFTCER To ' 1. The Senior lntelligent Officer, Directorate of e lntelligence, Hyderabad 2. One CC i:o Sri Sannidhiraja Malleswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T V Subba Rao,SC IOPUCI 4. Two CD rlopies 'GNK / t HIGH COURT DATED: 13,10312026 { H t o 1 6 I? A fl lrl1fi e ORDER x (s'f: d?! =l-;. ( ,-| ', CRLP. No. 2:127 of 2026 DISMISSINIG THE CRIMINAL PETITION 2t
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.