2017 (12) TMI 1814 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - smuggling - currency - currency seized from possession of the accused is not exceeding 1 crore the offence is bailable one or not - offence under Section 135(1)(a, b, c) of Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Having considered the submissions made by rival sides and the material made available for my perusal by way of case diary as well as the documents relied upon by the accused-petitioner but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case this is not found to be a fit case wherein indulgence of granting bail may be granted by this Court hence the application filed on behalf of accused-petitioner Arpit Jain u/s. 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 135(1)(a,b,c) of Customs Act, 1962 - Allegations of currency smuggling exceeding ?1 crore - Coercion in statement recording - Manipulation of department - Reliability of evidence - Comparison with previous judgments.

Analysis:
The bail application was moved on behalf of the petitioner in a case registered under Section 135(1)(a,b,c) of the Customs Act, 1962, for an offence related to currency smuggling. The petitioner's counsel argued that the offence should be bailable as the currency seized did not exceed ?1 crore. He further contended that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act was done under coercion and manipulation, as evidenced by discrepancies in dates and lack of reference to previous allegations. The counsel also questioned the reliability of evidence obtained from the petitioner's mobile phone, citing Section 138-C (c) of the Customs Act, 1962, and referred to a judgment by the Supreme Court in a similar context.

On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor argued that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act hold significance and should not be equated with statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He highlighted the substantial amount of currency allegedly taken by the petitioner to Dubai on previous visits, totaling over ?6.85 crores when combined with the seized amount. The prosecutor emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, suggesting that these factors should be considered during trial rather than at the bail application stage.

The court, after considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the case diary and relevant documents, refrained from expressing a final opinion on the case's merits. The court noted the relevance of a previous order by a Coordinate Bench supporting the prosecution's case. Ultimately, the court denied the bail application, stating that it was not a fit case for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., without delving into the case's substantive aspects. The court's decision was based on the seriousness of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, and the potential significance of the evidence presented, indicating a cautious approach in granting bail in this particular matter.