2019 (7) TMI 1683 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - it appears that the contention of the seventh accused that the 3rd accused was arrested only for the purpose of compelling the seventh accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer, as the 3rd accused is the wife of the seventh accused, cannot be viewed lightly. It appears that no gold was seized from the seventh accused - HELD THAT - It appears that the third accused, who was not involved in the above crime, was arrested and detained in custody without any justification. No crime was also registered against the third accused, in connection with the alleged prior incidents. The seventh accused is the husband of the third accused. No gold was seized from him. This being the situation, there are no justification for the prosecution to oppose the application filed by the seventh accused, when the prosecution has no objection in granting bail to the first accused, who was caught red-handed with 25 kg of gold. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the stage of investigation, the further detention of the petitioners is not necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. These applications stand allowed and the petitioners shall be released on bail on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for ₹ 35,000/- each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Summary

Issues:
Accused petitioners seeking bail under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act - Allegations of gold smuggling - Involvement of multiple accused - Prosecution seeking bail for most accused except the seventh accused - Objections raised by the prosecution against specific accused - Legal considerations for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Accusations and Arrests: The petitioners, accused in a case registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for offences under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, were involved in a smuggling operation where gold was intercepted from them upon arrival from Dubai. The accused were found in possession of significant amounts of gold, leading to their arrests on various dates.

2. Prosecution's Submissions: The prosecution, while not objecting to bail for most of the accused, specifically opposed the bail application of the seventh accused. The prosecution highlighted the alleged involvement of the seventh accused in introducing others to the smuggling gang and engaging in multiple instances of gold smuggling.

3. Legal Considerations for Bail: The court noted that while the third accused, who was not directly linked to the current offence, was detained without substantial justification, the prosecution had no material evidence connecting the third accused to the alleged crime. The court also acknowledged the lack of any seized gold from the seventh accused, questioning the basis for opposing their bail application.

4. Decision and Conditions: After evaluating the circumstances, the court deemed the continued detention of the petitioners unnecessary for the investigation's progress. Consequently, bail was granted to the accused petitioners, subject to specific conditions such as regular reporting to the Investigating Officer, refraining from committing further offences, cooperating with the investigation, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.

5. Legal Precedent: The judgment referenced the Apex Court's ruling in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [AIR 2006 SC 100], emphasizing that any future involvement in similar offences by the petitioners could lead to legal action without court intervention.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the nuances of the smuggling case, the varying degrees of involvement of the accused, and the legal criteria for granting bail, ultimately allowing bail for most petitioners while imposing stringent conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation with the ongoing investigation.