9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Bail application under Section 135 Customs Act, 1962 for alleged involvement in large-scale fabrication of documents to facilitate illegal imports.
Details of the judgment: 1. The petition sought regular bail for the Petitioners who had been in custody since February 2009. The case involved misdeclaration of goods imported as restricted items, which were actually cleared as freely importable items. The accused were involved in a systematic activity of preparing forged documents to facilitate illegal imports over an extended period of time. 2. Investigations revealed that the accused facilitated clearance of consignments by declaring them as assorted printed books when they were actually worn out clothes and other restricted items. The accused admitted to facilitating clearance by misdeclaring the goods, resulting in substantial evasion of customs duty. 3. The accused were found to have prepared false invoices and Bills of Lading for multiple companies, leading to a significant loss of revenue through duty evasion. The accused charged hefty amounts per container for facilitating clearance of consignments through fraudulent means. 4. The elder brother of one of the accused was stated to have abetted in smuggling goods by arranging imports in the name of fictitious firms based on forged documents. The accused charged commissions and forged signatures to facilitate duty-free clearance of consignments. 5. The bail application of the Petitioners was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the High Court upheld the decision based on the evidence implicating the Petitioners in the large-scale fabrication of documents for illegal imports. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the offense and the extent of the scam unearthed. 6. The Court declined the plea for bail, stating that the offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, resulting in a significant loss of revenue, was grave enough to warrant denial of bail at that stage. The Court made it clear that the decision did not comment on the bail granted to other co-accused and that any challenge to such orders would be considered on its merits.
|
