2015 (4) TMI 1362 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - Illegal smuggling of gold bars - HELD THAT - In the present case two persons arrested by the Officers of D.R.I. and from their possession gold was recovered weighing 4,076 gms. worth of one crore, nine lacs, ninety eight thousand and eighteen recovered for which the arrested persons could not produce any valid documents for its importation from foreign country. Thereafter, the statement of the co-accused persons under Section 108 of the Custom Act were recorded wherein they have stated about the complicity of the applicant and one Prahlad Setia and consequent thereto the applicant was intercepted and arrested by the D.R.I. officials and the applicant's statement was also recorded under Section 108 of the Custom Act who has admitted that he is managing the affairs of the smuggling at the behest of Prahlad Setia and he is a paid employee is the sufficient proof of the involvement of the applicant alongwith other persons for smuggling goods. Merely because the goods have not been recovered from the possession of the applicant will not mollify the gravity of offence. The applicant without coming into physical contact with the smuggled gold may yet be liable for having been concerned in its importation. It has been said that a man may be miles and miles away from the gold and yet if proof is available that he had an interest in or was concerned in its illegal transportation then he would be guilty of the offence and in the present case from the statement of the applicant and other arrested accused person it is quite evident that he did take some part in the series of steps which culminated in the gold being brought in the country. The statements of the applicant and other accused persons so recorded under Section 108 of the Custom Act are distinct and different from statement recorded by the police officers during the course of investigation under Criminal Procedure Code. It is a material piece of evidence collected by the Custom officials statement made by another accused persons inculpating the applicant therein, can be used as a substantive piece of evidence. The said statements under Section 108 of the Act are admissible in evidence. It is hardly required to be stated that once a person is released on bail in such a serious offence where punishment is quite deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses and evidence collected and also create problem of law and order situation. Release on bail in serious offence of such nature larger interest of the public and State always matter. The prayer for bail is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Sections 11, 104, and 135 of the Custom Act - Allegations of smuggling of foreign origin gold bars - Accused's involvement in illegal activities - Rejection of bail application by lower courts - Allegations of false implication by the accused - Prosecution's opposition to bail application - Gravity of the offence - Possibility of accused absconding if granted bail.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a bail application moved on behalf of an individual accused in a case related to smuggling of foreign origin gold bars under Sections 11, 104, and 135 of the Custom Act. The case originated from the interception of two individuals with gold bars concealed in specially designed shoes. The recovered gold was valued at over one crore rupees. The accused, along with others, were arrested and taken into custody. The accused admitted to being involved in smuggling activities and working for a person named Prahlad Setia. The prosecution contended that the accused's involvement in the smuggling operation was evident from confessional statements and other evidence gathered during the investigation.

The defense argued that the accused was falsely implicated and had no direct connection to the recovered gold. The defense claimed that the accused was coerced into becoming an accused and that no items were found in his possession. However, the prosecution maintained that the accused's admission of involvement and association with the arrested individuals indicated complicity in the smuggling operation. The prosecution opposed the bail application, highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the risk of the accused absconding if granted bail.

The court considered the evidence, including confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Custom Act, which implicated the accused in the smuggling activities. The court emphasized that even without physical possession of the smuggled goods, the accused could still be liable for involvement in their illegal transportation. The court noted that statements recorded by Custom officials under Section 108 are admissible as evidence. The court also highlighted the potential risks associated with granting bail in serious offences, such as tampering with evidence and witnesses, as well as the impact on public interest and law and order.

Ultimately, the court rejected the bail application, citing the gravity of the offence, the accused's alleged involvement in smuggling activities, and the potential risks associated with releasing the accused on bail. The judgment underscores the importance of considering public interest and the seriousness of the offence when deciding on bail applications in cases involving significant criminal activities.