2015 (10) TMI 1531 - HC - Customs

Appeal for Bail Offense under Section 135 read with Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 Petitioner contends that he has been detained in custody for about 46 days on the allegation of transporting about 1 kg of gold and no interrogation is done so far Petitioner states that his detention would serve no fruitful purpose thus bail appealed Revenue contends that petitioner was transporting about 6 kgs of gold which has a value of about ₹ 1 crore 60 lakh Held That - On consideration of the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, the gravity of the offence, the period of detention of the petitioner in custody and the progress of investigation of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on some conditions Bail Granted conditionally.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Customs Case No. MISCS-0016755 of 2015 under Section 135 read with Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to a Customs case pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 46 days on the accusation of transporting about 1 kg of gold with three co-accused individuals. It was argued that no interrogation of the petitioner had taken place in the correctional home for the past month, and the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation, asserting that further detention served no purpose. On the other hand, the Customs counsel stated that the accused, including the petitioner, were involved in transporting around 6 kgs of gold without legal authority, valued at approximately Rs. 1 crore 60 lakh, with the investigation ongoing. The court examined the materials collected by the Customs authority, revealing that while 6 kgs of gold were seized from all accused jointly, only 1 kg was found in the possession of the petitioner.

Considering the gravity of the offense, the duration of the petitioner's custody, and the progress of the investigation, the court was inclined to grant bail under certain conditions. The petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The conditions included the petitioner reporting to the investigating officer weekly until the investigation's completion and the filing of a complaint before the appropriate court. The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was released on bail, subject to the specified terms.