2017 (4) TMI 140 - HC - Customs

Quantum of surety amount - petitioner s case is that the petitioner was simply carrier of the Gold and he is a poor person and received only ₹ 1200/- as carrier charges, therefore, the surety amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- is excessive and the same may be reduced - Held that - From possession of the petitioner 1 kg. gold, which was being smuggled from Singapore to India has been recovered at the Airport. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner is a poor person. If the petitioner can travel by Air and can have 1 kg. gold, he cannot be said to be a poor person - petition lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to bail conditions based on surety amount and petitioner's financial status.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order granting bail but requiring heavy sureties. The petitioner argued that as a carrier of gold receiving minimal charges, the surety amount of ?5,00,000 was excessive and requested a reduction.
2. The respondent contended that the petitioner was arrested with 1 kg of gold worth ?31.00 lakhs, justifying the surety amount. The respondent emphasized that carrying unauthorized gold is illegal.
3. The judge noted the recovery of 1 kg of gold from the petitioner at the airport, indicating involvement in smuggling. The judge highlighted that the ability to travel by air and possess such valuable goods contradicted the petitioner's claim of being poor.
4. The judge found no abuse of process of law in the bail conditions and dismissed the petition, stating it lacked merit. However, the surety amount was reduced from ?5.00 lakhs to ?3.00 lakhs while upholding the rest of the order.
5. The judgment balanced the petitioner's argument of financial constraints with the seriousness of the offense, ultimately modifying the surety amount but maintaining the overall decision on bail conditions.