2017 (5) TMI 1494 - HC - Customs

Application for regular bail - offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant and the fact that the offence alleged is exclusively triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and is compoundable and more particularly the fact that the 2 of the importers who have been arraigned in the alleged offence are released on bail by the respective courts, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Offence and Arrest:
The applicant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was arrested for alleged offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The arrest was made without the service of any grounds for arrest. The applicant contended that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and is compoundable. It was highlighted that out of 14 importers involved in the alleged breach, only 2 had been prosecuted, with one already on bail. The applicant sought bail based on the argument that similar accused had been granted bail previously.

2. Applicant's Arguments:
The applicant's senior advocate heavily relied on the decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and a High Court of Delhi decision to support the bail application. The applicant's counsel urged the court to grant bail on suitable terms and conditions due to the nature of the offence and the status of other co-accused who had been granted bail.

3. Opposition by Respondent:
The Assistant Solicitor General vehemently opposed the bail application, citing credible documentary evidence, including a confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, indicating forgery and abetment of Customs duty evasion. It was argued that the investigation confirmed forgery in 14 import consignments and releasing the applicant could lead to tampering with evidence or influencing involved parties.

4. Court's Decision:
After hearing both parties, the court considered the allegations, the fact that the offence was triable by a Magistrate and compoundable, and the bail granted to other accused. The court exercised discretion and granted the applicant regular bail on a personal bond of ?50,000 with specific conditions. These conditions included surrendering the passport, not leaving the state without permission, marking presence at specified times, and providing a permanent address. The court emphasized that the observations made during bail should not influence the trial court's decision.

5. Conclusion:
The court allowed the bail application, emphasizing the nature of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the status of other accused. The conditions imposed aimed to ensure the applicant's availability and compliance during the trial proceedings, with provisions for appropriate action in case of any breach.