2016 (6) TMI 263 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - Seizure of illegally imported foreign currencies - Prohibited goods - Held that - appointment of franchisee has not been made by the order of the Reserve Bank of India. There is only authorization letter issued by the AFPL. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the stand taken by Obeda Khan, Irfan and Laeek, the provisions of the Customs Act and FEMA, no case is made out for bail. - Decided against the applicant

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Offence and Applicant's Submission:
The bail application was filed under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the possession of foreign currency by the applicant. The applicant claimed to be an agent of a company dealing with foreign currency exchange and argued that the currencies found in his possession were collected for depositing in a bank. He emphasized that the possession was legal as per the company's appointment and guidelines, citing relevant provisions of the Customs Act and FEMA.

2. Prosecution's Argument and Legal Stand:
The prosecution opposed the bail, alleging smuggling under the guise of the company. They contended that the appointment of the franchisee lacked legal validity, and the applicant was unauthorized to handle foreign currencies. The prosecution highlighted that the currencies were considered prohibited goods under the Customs Act, leading to a non-bailable offence with a maximum punishment of seven years.

3. Judicial Evaluation and Decision:
The court considered both parties' arguments, emphasizing that the applicant did not deny possessing the foreign currencies and lacked authorization from the Reserve Bank of India for the transactions. The court analyzed the severity of the offence, the evidence presented, and the implications on the Indian economy due to smuggling activities. Ultimately, the bail application was rejected based on the nature of the offence, the lack of denial of possession, and the absence of valid authorization.

4. Conclusion and Clarification:
The court clarified that the rejection of bail was based on prima facie observations and would not influence the trial's outcome. Any remarks in the order were solely for the bail decision and should not impact the trial proceedings or evidence presentation. The case would proceed based on the evidence provided during the trial without reference to the bail order's observations.