2011 (1) TMI 1569 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail condition requiring the accused to deposit Rs. 4 crore as a difference of Custom Duty.
2. Interpretation of Sections 437(3) and 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding bail conditions.
3. Applicability of precedents in imposing bail conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the bail condition requiring the accused to deposit Rs. 4 crore as a difference of Custom Duty:
The accused-revisionist challenged the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge, which required him to deposit Rs. 4 crore as a difference of Custom Duty while granting bail. The court examined whether such a condition could be imposed and concluded that it was excessively onerous and amounted to a denial of bail. The court noted that the goods in question were already under seizure by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and that the custom duty could be realized through separate proceedings under the Customs Act. Therefore, the condition was deemed harsh and illegal.

2. Interpretation of Sections 437(3) and 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding bail conditions:
The court analyzed Sections 437(3) and 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow the imposition of certain conditions while granting bail. These sections specify that conditions should ensure the accused's attendance, prevent the commission of similar offenses, and avoid tampering with evidence. The court emphasized that conditions should not be unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary, or onerous. The court concluded that the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge fell outside the permissible scope of these sections and was therefore invalid.

3. Applicability of precedents in imposing bail conditions:
The court referred to several precedents, including Moti Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Keshab Narayan Banerjee vs. State of Bihar, Olga Kozireva vs. Department of Customs, and Munish Bhasin vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). These cases established that bail conditions should not be excessively onerous and should not frustrate the purpose of granting bail. The court reiterated that conditions beyond those enumerated in Sections 437(3) and 438(2) are beyond the court's powers. The court found that the condition imposed by the Sessions Judge was inconsistent with these precedents and thus invalid.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the criminal revision, modifying the impugned order by deleting the condition requiring the deposit of Rs. 4 crore. The decision underscored that bail conditions must align with statutory provisions and established legal principles, ensuring they are not excessively burdensome or unjust.