2016 (7) TMI 1368 - HC - Customs

Bail application - Smuggling - foreign origin Cigarettes - Held that - no good ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the applicant for enlarging the applicant on bail - The applicant along with other co-accused persons were actively involved in smuggling the foreign origin cigarettes in contravention of Custom Act, thus, the bail application of the applicant has rightly been rejected - bail application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application refusal under Sections 132, 135(1)(A), 135(1)(B) of Customs Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved a bail application refusal for the applicant, who was involved in a case under Sections 132, 135(1)(A), 135(1)(B) of the Customs Act. The prosecution story revolved around allegations of smuggling foreign origin cigarettes by the applicant and others, leading to a complaint filed by the Union of India through Intelligence Officers of DRI. The applicant, a partner in a firm, contested the allegations, claiming lack of involvement in the smuggling activities. It was argued that the firm was not engaged in import-export business and that the seized cigarettes were possibly planted by another partner without the applicant's knowledge. Additionally, the applicant's health conditions were highlighted to support the bail application.

The Union of India, represented by counsel, countered the applicant's claims, asserting the applicant's active involvement in the firm's affairs and the recovery of foreign origin cigarettes from the firm's premises. Specific intelligence information pointed towards a syndicate smuggling cigarettes under the guise of scrap import, implicating the applicant and other partners. The prosecution argued that the applicant's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act indicated complicity in the alleged offense, causing a substantial loss of custom duty. The misuse of the SEZ scheme and a well-planned strategy to defraud the national exchequer were also raised against the applicant and co-accused.

After considering the arguments and perusing the material on record, the Court concluded that no sufficient grounds were presented by the applicant's counsel to grant bail. The Court found the prosecution's contentions regarding the applicant's involvement in smuggling activities and the substantial loss of custom duty compelling, leading to the refusal of the bail application. Consequently, the bail prayer for the applicant involved in the Customs Act case was dismissed by the Court.