2015 (12) TMI 1516 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - Consignment of gold seized - No procedure under Chapter XIV of the Act, has been initiated for confiscating the goods - Held that - the applicant was arrested on 24.02.2015 and was in judicial custody pursuant to the lodgment of FIR by the police department, the Custom Department has arrested the applicant on 29.08.2015 i.e. after more than six months. There might be some investigation during this period, however it is desirable to comment anything about the reasons for not arresting the applicant for considerable long time. The complaint has also been filed on 60th day from his arrest. This also suggests that customs department has sufficient time to investigate the case i.e. from 24.02.2015 to 27.10.2015 i.e. date of filing the complaint before the learned Magistrate. As far as allegations that in past also, the applicant had indulged in similar activities, which is under investigation, that would not be the ground to reject the application, since the authority had sufficient time to complete the investigation. By relying upon the decision rendered by Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala V/s. Raneef 2011 (1) TMI 1396 - SUPREME COURT and in the case of Sanjay Chandra 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT , the applicant is behind bar since more than 10 months which is considered as long period and it is equally true that investigation is almost over. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail and hence the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail.
2. Delay in arrest by the Customs Department.
3. Allegations of past similar activities.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Customs Act.
5. Considerations for granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Regular Bail:
The applicants sought regular bail in connection with DRI File No.DRI/AZU/GI-02/ENQ-10/2015 for offences under Sections 132 and 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The application was initially dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently by the learned Sessions Judge. The applicants then approached the High Court for bail.

2. Delay in Arrest by the Customs Department:
The applicants were initially arrested by the DCB Crime on 24/02/2015 and were in judicial custody until 29/08/2015 when they were formally arrested by the respondent authority. The applicants argued that the Customs Authority deliberately prolonged the investigation and delayed their arrest by more than six months. The court noted that the Customs Department had sufficient time to investigate the case from 24/02/2015 to 27/10/2015, the date of filing the complaint before the learned Magistrate.

3. Allegations of Past Similar Activities:
The prosecution alleged that the applicants were involved in similar activities in the past, receiving several consignments and evading huge amounts of custom duties. The court, however, opined that the past activities under investigation should not be grounds to reject the bail application since the authority had sufficient time to complete the investigation.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Customs Act:
The applicants contended that no proceedings under Chapter XIV of the Customs Act for confiscating the goods had been initiated against them. The court noted that although a huge consignment of gold worth more than Rs. 16 Crores was seized, no procedure for confiscation had been initiated by the Customs Department. The court also considered that the applicants had not traveled from Dubai and were only caught along with the three accused who had passed through customs without paying duty.

5. Considerations for Granting Bail:
The court relied on the judgment in Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, which outlined factors for granting bail, including the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, apprehension of tampering with witnesses, and delay in concluding the trial. The court noted that the applicants had been in custody for more than 10 months and the investigation was almost over. Considering these factors, the court found it appropriate to grant bail.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the bail application, ordering the applicants to be released on regular bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, subject to conditions including not taking undue advantage of liberty, not acting in a manner injurious to the prosecution, surrendering their passports, not leaving the State of Gujarat and Delhi without permission, marking presence at the concerned police station, and furnishing their latest address of residence. The court also stated that the trial court should not be influenced by the observations made while granting bail.