2013 (8) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Conditions for granting bail - Whether the court was right in imposing conditions while granting the bail - athe petitioner was arrested by Customs Officer in purported exercising power conferred under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with a consignment of export made by the said company - Held that - The petitioner should be permitted to take back his passport from the concerned authority to go abroad strictly only for a month according to his requirement subject to the conditions - the State is within its domain to put restriction about freedom of movement but a balance has to be struck between liberty and justice court heavily relied upon Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT). On inquiry the counsel for the respondent could not give any positive and acceptable answer over the question whether custody trial is needed in such type of case - even the respondent cannot give any clear-cut probable time during which the trial may be concluded - the respondent sat idle - the rationality and proportionality of the prayer of the petitioner should be considered - deprivation of his personal life and liberty has to be taken care of petition allowed in the favour of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of conditions imposed while granting bail under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Right to foreign travel as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Balance between personal liberty and justice in serious criminal cases involving a significant amount of revenue.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the conditions imposed at the time of granting bail, arguing that the offences under the Customs Act were non-cognizable and could not be investigated without permission from the Magistrate. The petitioner sought relaxation of bail conditions to travel overseas for business purposes. The court considered the seriousness of the alleged offences involving a substantial amount of revenue and the maximum punishment of 7 years with a fine. The court balanced the petitioner's personal liberty with the need for justice and imposed specific conditions for the petitioner to travel abroad, including depositing a significant amount of cash as security and providing regular updates on his whereabouts.

2. The petitioner contended that the right to foreign travel was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court acknowledged this right but emphasized that in this case, the petitioner's business did not necessitate travel outside India. The court highlighted the need to strike a balance between liberty and justice, considering the gravity of the offences and the potential risk of the petitioner not returning to face trial if allowed to travel abroad. The court allowed the petitioner to travel overseas for a limited period under strict conditions to ensure his return to India.

3. The court analyzed the necessity of custody trial in such cases and noted that the respondent had not provided a clear timeline for the trial to be concluded. The court emphasized the importance of rationality and proportionality in considering the petitioner's request for foreign travel. While recognizing the deprivation of personal life and liberty, the court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard against the risk of the petitioner not returning. The court highlighted the need for a balance between the state's right to restrict movement and the individual's right to personal liberty, ultimately allowing the petitioner to travel abroad for a specific period with strict conditions to ensure his return.

This judgment by the High Court of Calcutta addresses the complex interplay between personal liberty, justice, and the right to foreign travel in the context of serious criminal offences involving a significant amount of revenue. The court's decision reflects a nuanced approach to balancing these competing interests while ensuring the petitioner's compliance with the imposed conditions.