2016 (3) TMI 559 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - Consignment of gold seized - No procedure under Chapter XIV of the Act, has been initiated for confiscating the goods - Held that - the applicant was arrested on 24.02.2015 and was in judicial custody pursuant to the lodgment of FIR by the police department, the Custom Department has arrested the applicant on 28.08.2015 i.e. after more than six months. There might be some investigation during this period, however it is desirable to comment anything about the reasons for not arresting the applicant for considerable long time. The complaint has also been filed on 60th day from his arrest. This also suggests that customs department has sufficient time to investigate the case i.e. from 24.02.2015 to 27.10.2015 i.e. date of filing the complaint before the learned Magistrate. As far as allegations that in past also, the applicant had indulged in similar activities, which is under investigation, that would not be the ground to reject the application, since the authority had sufficient time to complete the investigation. By relying upon the decision rendered by Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala V/s. Raneef 2011 (1) TMI 1396 - SUPREME COURT and in the case of Sanjay Chandra 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT , the applicant is behind bar since more than 10 months which is considered as long period and it is equally true that investigation is almost over. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail and hence the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Allegations of illegal importation and evasion of customs duty under Sections 132 and 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Delay in arrest and investigation by the Customs Department.
4. Consideration of bail based on the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and supporting evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Regular Bail:
The application for regular bail was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) File No.DRI/AZU/GI-02/ENQ-10/2015 for offences under Sections 132 and 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was registered in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.11, Ahmedabad.

2. Allegations of Illegal Importation and Evasion of Customs Duty:
The case involved a secret operation by the Crime Branch of Ahmedabad city, which intercepted a consignment of 60 gold bars weighing 60 kgs and valued at Rs. 16 Crores at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport. The accused, including the applicant, were caught red-handed while attempting to load the consignment into a vehicle. An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 11, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, with additional Sections 467 and 147 added later. The Customs Department initiated an inquiry into the evasion of duty and false declarations made by the accused.

3. Delay in Arrest and Investigation by the Customs Department:
The applicant was initially arrested by the DCB Crime on 24.02.2015 and was in judicial custody until 28.08.2015, when the Customs Department formally arrested him. The complaint was filed on the 60th day from his arrest, indicating that the Customs Department had sufficient time to investigate but delayed the arrest and filing of the complaint. The applicant argued that the investigation was prolonged deliberately and that the gold had already been seized, making further detention unnecessary.

4. Consideration of Bail Based on Nature of Accusation, Severity of Punishment, and Supporting Evidence:
The applicant's counsel argued that the investigation was over, and there was no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, who were all government officers. The maximum punishment under Section 135 of the Customs Act is seven years, and the applicant had already been granted bail in a related offence by the learned Sessions Judge. The counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Chandra v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, which emphasized considering the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and supporting evidence when deciding bail applications.

The respondent's counsel opposed the bail, citing the applicant's involvement in serious crime and ongoing illegal activities. However, the court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over 10 months, and the investigation was almost complete. The court considered the factors outlined by the Supreme Court, including the delay in concluding the trial, and found that the application merited consideration.

Judgment:
The court allowed the application for regular bail, ordering the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to certain conditions such as not leaving the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra without permission, surrendering the passport, and marking presence at the police station periodically. The court emphasized that the trial court should not be influenced by the preliminary observations made during the bail proceedings. The rule was made absolute to the extent of granting bail, with direct service permitted.