2015 (11) TMI 1603 - HC - Customs

Bail application u/s 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - appellant was assisting the other co-accused in procuring red-sanders in trucks from South India, storing in their godown at Village Bakhtawarpur, New Delhi and further illicitly exporting from Delhi Port to Dubai and it was found that the illicit export of red sanders was attempted in the guise of genuine exports of Acrylic Bath Tubs and Bath Tub Accessories - forged documents - Held that - this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve for grant of concession of bail at this stage, as The petitioner is involved in stealing and smuggling of 54.7 Metric Ton Red Sander Wood valued at ₹ 23.3 crores, which is a very precious and scarce natural resource of the country - other reasons also presented - It goes without saying that any observation made in the aforesaid order shall not affect the merits of the case at trial - this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail in this case, at this stage - bail not granted - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking bail in a case under Section 132, 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner was accused of assisting in the smuggling of red sanders from South India, storing them in a godown in New Delhi, and illicitly exporting them to Dubai. The illicit export was camouflaged as genuine exports of 'Acrylic Bath Tubs and Bath Tub Accessories' under forged documents. The petitioner was alleged to be actively involved in various aspects of the smuggling racket, including procurement, transportation, storage, and dealing with the recovered red sanders. It was asserted that the petitioner was a significant member of an international smuggling racket.

2. Previous Bail Application:
The petitioner had previously applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was denied due to the seriousness of the offense involving stealing and smuggling a valuable national resource. The large scale of the operation and the nature of the offense were crucial factors in rejecting the bail application.

3. Contentions of Petitioner's Counsel:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, coerced to sign papers without understanding their contents, and that no offense was made out under the Customs Act. The counsel raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction and emphasized that the petitioner's presence was not required for investigation, as pre-charge evidence was pending. The petitioner's clean antecedents, roots in society, and family responsibilities were highlighted to support the bail application.

4. Prosecution's Opposition:
The Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitioner's contentions, indicating a strong stance against granting bail based on the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner's involvement in the smuggling racket.

5. Court's Decision:
After considering all submissions and relevant judgments, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not merit bail at that stage. The Court highlighted the gravity of the offense, the petitioner's involvement in a significant smuggling operation, and the recovery of a substantial quantity of red sanders. The Court also noted the dismissal of a similar bail application by other co-accused. The Court emphasized that observations made in the order would not impact the trial's merits. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

6. Final Verdict:
The Court, based on the seriousness of the offense, the petitioner's active role in the smuggling racket, and the significant recovery of red sanders, decided that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at that juncture. The application for bail was therefore dismissed.