⚖️ ₹30 Crore Furniture Scam: Court Rejects Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Plea to Cancel Bail of Businessman

Mumbai: In a significant legal development, a Sessions Court in Mumbai has rejected the plea filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seeking cancellation of bail granted to businessman Falgun Yogendra Shroff in an alleged ₹30 crore imported furniture scam.

The case dates back to August last year, when the DRI arrested Shroff for allegedly importing high-end Italian luxury furniture by significantly undervaluing goods to evade customs duties. The agency had challenged the earlier bail order granted on August 2, 2025, by the Esplanade Court, arguing that the decision failed to consider the seriousness of the economic offence.

DRI’s Argument

The DRI contended that the case involves a large-scale financial fraud requiring sustained and in-depth investigation. It argued that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary in light of new developments and alleged that Shroff had not fully cooperated, claiming he withheld key documents such as original invoices and login credentials related to the case.

The agency further alleged breach of bail conditions and stressed the need to confront the accused with additional evidence to identify other individuals involved in the alleged syndicate.

Defence Stand

Opposing the plea, defence counsel argued that the application was “false and misconceived,” stating there were no new or compelling circumstances to justify cancellation of bail. The defence maintained that the accused had fully complied with all bail conditions, regularly appeared before investigating officers, and submitted necessary documents.

It was also highlighted that Shroff had been granted permission to travel abroad multiple times by the court and had returned to India each time in compliance with legal directives. His passport was eventually returned permanently, indicating no risk of absconding.

Additionally, the defence pointed out that the accused had deposited ₹5 crore with the government treasury as a demonstration of good faith and had neither attempted to tamper with evidence nor influence witnesses.

Court’s Observation

After hearing both sides, the court emphasised that cancellation of bail is legally distinct from rejection of bail and requires strong and compelling reasons. Referring to key judgments of the Supreme Court of India, including Daulat Ram vs State of Haryana and Dipak Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the court reiterated that bail once granted should not be cancelled routinely.

The judge noted that there was no evidence suggesting that the accused had violated bail conditions, attempted to flee, or interfered with the investigation. On the contrary, records indicated cooperation with authorities and adherence to court directions.

The court also observed that if the prosecution was dissatisfied with the original bail order, it should have challenged it before an appellate court rather than seeking cancellation at a later stage. The delay in filing the plea was also taken into account.

Conclusion

Finding no “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” to justify cancellation, the Sessions Court dismissed the DRI’s application. However, it clarified that the investigating agency remains free to approach the trial court for appropriate relief, including custodial interrogation, as per law.