2014 (3) TMI 1035 - HC - Customs

Disentitlement of grant of bail - Evasion of customs duty by carrying 18kgs of gold while traveling - Under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - the respondent-accused persons are previous offenders contended by the petitioners but it was not disclosed in which cases they are involved and also one of the main accused is seriously handicapped with 61% of disability. Whether retracted confessions are true or not, is an aspect which is required to be considered at trial and is not to be looked into at this stage to cancel bail granted to respondent-accused persons. Custody of accused persons in a case like the instant one is not to be measured in days but it has to be seen whether the grant of bail would hamper the investigation and if it is found to be so, then bail is not to be granted in such cases. The gravity of offence is a valid consideration to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail and it does not really justify grant of bail at initial stage of investigation but since impugned order does not border on perversity, therefore, it is being not interfered with. However, grant of bail to respondent-accused at initial stage of investigation is deprecated in the facts and circumstances of this case. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues: Grant of bail in a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 involving recovery of gold bars, consideration of gravity of the offense, relevance of previous offenses, disability of the accused, validity of retracted confession, impact on investigation, and distinction between grant and cancellation of bail.

Analysis:
1. The trial court granted bail to the respondent-accused persons in a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 involving the recovery of 18 kgs of gold bars worth over five crores with evaded custom duty of `1.63 crores. The petitioner argued that the magnitude of the offense disentitles the accused from bail within 25 days of custody.

2. The petitioner relied on various legal decisions to support the argument that in cases of white-collar crimes like the present one, bail should be an exception, especially when the investigation is ongoing, and retracted confessions could lead to conviction with a punishment of up to seven years.

3. The High Court noted that the trial court based its decision on a previous case to grant bail to the accused persons. The petitioner highlighted that in the cited case, bail was granted after the investigation was complete and after the accused had been in custody for about six months.

4. It was revealed that the offense in question was made non-bailable post May 2013, emphasizing the gravity of the offense as a valid consideration for bail decisions. The trial court found that the accused persons were not previous offenders, and one of the main accused had a significant disability. The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment.

5. The High Court emphasized that the truthfulness of retracted confessions should be determined during the trial and should not be a basis for canceling bail at this stage. The court highlighted that the custody of accused persons should be assessed based on its impact on the investigation rather than the number of days in custody.

6. The court differentiated between considerations for granting and canceling bail, noting that the gravity of the offense does not justify bail at the initial stage of investigation. While the court refrained from interfering with the impugned order, it deprecated the grant of bail at the initial stage of investigation in the circumstances of the case.

7. The petitioner disclosed that the accused persons had not been called for investigation after the bail order, and the timeline for completing the investigation was uncertain. The High Court disposed of the petition without quashing the bail order but clarified that the order should not set a precedent.