2014 (6) TMI 895 - HC - Customs

Arrest of employee of Of courier services to give door to door delivery - ofence punishable under Sections 135A and 135B of the Customs Act - it is contended that in so far as alleged offences are concerned the present petitioner is totally unconnected and he was not at all having the knowledge that the imported material and boxes contain 7 Kgs of gold bar worth ₹ 2,14,27,000/-. - Held that - The material also goes to show that the Customs Authorities and also the Investigation Officer searched the house of the present petitioner and nothing was found relating to the alleged offence. The only allegation against the present petitioner that he went to collect the consignment which was imported without the knowledge that the imported boxes contain gold bars. It is the submission that the main accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been already granted with the bail by the Special Economic Court by passing the order dated 15-4-2014. Looking all these aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner. - Bail granted - Decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. for offences under Sections 135A and 135B of Customs Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, accused No. 3, sought anticipatory bail for alleged offences under Sections 135A and 135B of the Customs Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was unaware of the gold bars in the imported material, emphasizing his lack of involvement. It was highlighted that the Customs Authorities found nothing incriminating in the petitioner's house during a search. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been granted bail. The prosecution contended that evidence pointed to the petitioner's involvement and granting bail might lead to absconding or witness tampering. The Court reviewed the case details, noting the petitioner's role as a delivery boy and lack of direct evidence linking him to the gold bars. The Court referred to a previous case and decided in favor of the petitioner, granting anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the arguments from both sides, acknowledging the evidence collected during the investigation implicating the petitioner. However, it noted the lack of substantial proof directly connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences. The Court highlighted that the main accused had already been granted bail and that the petitioner's involvement seemed limited to collecting the consignment without knowledge of its contents. The Court emphasized that any statement made by the main accused against the petitioner was inadmissible. Despite the substantial amount involved in the case, the Court decided to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner and granted anticipatory bail.

The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail if arrested for the alleged offences under the Customs Act. The Court imposed conditions, including executing a personal bond and providing a surety, refraining from tampering with witnesses, cooperating with the investigation, and appearing before the Magistrate Court within a specified timeframe. The decision balanced the petitioner's rights with the concerns raised by the prosecution, ensuring compliance with legal procedures while safeguarding the petitioner's liberty during the ongoing investigation.