2000 (2) TMI 835 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail u/s 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Nature of offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Considerations for granting bail in non-bailable offences.
4. Judicial discretion and principles for granting bail.
5. Specific arguments and precedents cited by both parties.

Summary:

1. Grant of Bail u/s 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The petitioner sought bail u/s 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code after being charged with offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 5.8.1999 following his arrest on 4.8.1999.

2. Nature of Offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The offence under Section 132 is bailable, while the offence under Section 135(1)(b) is non-bailable. The petitioner is accused of smuggling synthetic fabrics of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1,28,74,580/-, which were seized from his business premises. The seized goods are notified under Section 123 of the Act, placing the burden of proof on the accused to show that the goods were legally imported.

3. Considerations for Granting Bail in Non-Bailable Offences:
The Court considered various factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice. It was noted that the investigation was complete, the goods were seized, and the main witnesses were official witnesses, reducing the risk of tampering.

4. Judicial Discretion and Principles for Granting Bail:
The Court emphasized that personal liberty is a precious value under Article 21 of the Constitution, and bail should be the rule rather than the exception. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial, not to punish pre-conviction. The Court cited several precedents, including Gurcharan Singh & Others Vs. State and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. The State of Punjab, to highlight that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering all relevant factors.

5. Specific Arguments and Precedents Cited by Both Parties:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the offence being an economic offence should not be a ground for refusing bail, especially since the investigation was complete, and the petitioner had cooperated fully. The respondents opposed the bail on grounds of the gravity of the economic offence and the risk of the petitioner fleeing or tampering with evidence. The Court referred to various judgments, including State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, to assess the gravity of economic offences but concluded that economic offences should not be treated differently from other offences in the matter of granting bail.

Conclusion:
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing his release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner was also directed not to leave the country without prior permission from the trial court. The petition was disposed of accordingly.