MUMBAI: The Sessions Court rejected the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused Falgun Yogendra Shroff in Rs 30 crores imported furniture scam.The case pertains to August last year when the DRI arrested businessman Shroff for allegedly importing high-end Italian luxury furniture by grossly undervaluing goods and evading customs duties.The DRI had moved the Session court challenging the earlier bail order dated August 2, 2025, passed by the ACJM, Esplanade Court, Mumbai.The DRI argued that the bail order was illegal, perverse, and failed to consider the seriousness of the offence. According to the agency, the case involved a significant economic offence requiring deep and continuous investigation. It was contended that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary in light of new developments during the investigation.The prosecution further alleged that the accused had not cooperated fully, claiming he withheld crucial documents such as original invoices and login credentials linked to the alleged undervaluation scheme. The agency submitted that the accused had breached bail conditions and that his custody was necessary to confront him with evidence and identify other members of the syndicate.The defence lawyer Sujay Kantawala for Shroff strongly opposed the plea, terming it false and misconceived. It was argued that there were no supervening circumstances warranting cancellation of bail. The accused maintained that he had complied with all bail conditions and had cooperated with the investigation.The defence highlighted that the accused had appeared before investigating officers whenever summoned, submitted relevant documents, and even provided login credentials of multiple email accounts. It was also pointed out that the trial court had permitted him to travel abroad on multiple occasions after hearing both sides, and he had returned to India in compliance with court orders. His passport was eventually returned permanently, indicating no flight risk.Additionally, the defence submitted that the accused had deposited Rs. 5 crore with the government treasury as a mark of bona fides and had not attempted to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the court reiterated the settled legal position that cancellation of bail is distinct from rejection of bail and requires “cogent and overwhelming circumstances.”Relying on Supreme Court rulings including Daulat Ram vs State of Haryana and Dipak Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the court noted that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a routine manner unless there is clear evidence of misuse of liberty. The court found no material to show that the accused had violated any bail conditions, attempted to abscond, or interfered with the investigation. On the contrary, the record indicated that he had cooperated with the investigating agency and complied with court directions.The judge also observed that if the prosecution was aggrieved by the original bail order, it should have challenged it before the appropriate appellate forum instead of seeking cancellation at a later stage. The delay in filing the application was also noted. Holding that no supervening circumstances were made out and that the accused had not misused the liberty granted to him, the Sessions Court dismissed the DRI’s application.The court, however, clarified that the investigating agency is at liberty to approach the trial court for appropriate relief, including custodial interrogation, in accordance with law.
