2019 (10) TMI 1357 - HC - Customs

Grant of Bail - smuggling of gold - investigation still going on - HELD THAT - Considering the material on record, the fact that further investigation is going on, address of applicant No.1 has not been found proved by the D.R.I. team, the fact that appellant No.2 is a resident of Nepal and also the seriousness of the nature of crime, the bail cannot be granted to the applicants at this stage. The investigating agency is directed to conclude the investigation, preferably, within a period of three months from today - the applicants can approach this Court again after the investigation is complete - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Bail application denial based on ongoing investigation, confessional statement as evidence, seriousness of crime, address verification failure, role of co-accused

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad involved the denial of a bail application based on multiple factors. The prosecution alleged that the applicants were intercepted in a car with a large quantity of gold, leading to their arrest. The applicants had been in custody since the incident, and the offense they were accused of carried a maximum sentence of seven years. The defense argued that the main accused individuals had not been arrested, and the prosecution's case relied heavily on a confessional statement allegedly obtained under duress. The defense also emphasized that the applicants had not fabricated any documents.

On the other hand, the counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) contended that the substantial amount of gold found could not have been planted and highlighted the significance of the confessional statement made by the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The burden of proof was stated to lie on the applicants under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Additionally, the verification of the address provided by one of the applicants failed, raising doubts about the credibility of the information provided.

The court considered the ongoing investigation, the failure to verify the address, the seriousness of the crime, and the residency status of one of the applicants, who was a resident of Nepal. Given these factors, the court decided not to grant bail at that stage, directing the investigating agency to conclude the investigation within three months. The applicants were given the option to approach the court again after the investigation was completed.

In conclusion, the denial of bail was based on the ongoing investigation, the significance of the confessional statement as evidence, the failure to verify the address, the seriousness of the crime, and the residency status of one of the applicants. The judgment highlighted the importance of completing the investigation and allowed the applicants to seek bail again after its conclusion.