9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1583 - HC - CustomsBail application - bailable offence - Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of DATARAM SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, it is a fit case for grant of bail. Let applicant Vinay Kumar Agarwal be released on bail.
Issues: Bail application under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: - The applicant, represented by Ms. Katyayini, claimed innocence and false implication due to ulterior motives, citing Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deems the offense as bailable. It was argued that no offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was established against the applicant, emphasizing lack of incriminating evidence and absence of recovered items in the applicant's possession. The defense highlighted the insufficiency of credible evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged crime, stressing the absence of criminal history, flight risk, or witness tampering concerns. - The opposing counsel, Shri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, and the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) contested the bail plea vigorously, opposing the applicant's release. - After considering arguments from both sides, the judge, referring to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, without delving into the case's merits, granted bail to the applicant, Vinay Kumar Agarwal, in Case Crime No. Nil of 2018 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, with specific conditions. - The conditions for bail included furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. Five Lacs each, with one surety being a family member, subject to adherence to specific terms: cooperation with the trial, non-tampering with evidence, no engagement in unlawful activities, and no misuse of bail liberty. The court emphasized verification of sureties' identity, status, and residential proof, with a provision for bail cancellation and imprisonment in case of breaching any conditions.
|
