2020 (11) TMI 392 - HC - Customs

Bail Application - case of the prosecution is that, petitioner has been organizing Indian Operations based in Kerala and has been involved in illegal smuggling of gold in the form of compound gold pieces - HELD THAT - As the investigating agency is required to unearth the ramifications of the offences, release of the petitioner at this stage is likely to hamper the investigation and hence, petition cannot be allowed. Direction is issued to the State/Union territory to constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (iii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum. The said order does not furnish a ground for the petitioner to seek his release on bail. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking release under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. after Trial Court rejection. Accused of offences under Customs Act, 1962. Grounds for release based on bail for other accused, Supreme Court directive, and lack of incriminating evidence.

Analysis:
The petitioner, accused No. 18, sought release under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. after the Trial Court rejected the application. The prosecution alleged the petitioner's involvement in illegal smuggling of gold in compound form in Kerala. The petitioner's counsel argued for release citing bail for other accused, a Supreme Court directive, and lack of incriminating evidence against the petitioner.

The court found the accusations against the petitioner to be serious, with ongoing investigation and potential incriminating material. The respondent presented evidence of the petitioner's involvement in smuggling activities through WhatsApp conversations and possession of mobile phones crucial for investigation. Concerns were raised about the petitioner potentially damaging or destroying evidence if released on bail, hindering the investigation process.

Considering the need for the investigating agency to uncover the full extent of the offences, the court decided against granting bail to the petitioner at this stage. The court also addressed the Supreme Court's directive in a separate writ petition, clarifying that it did not provide grounds for the petitioner's release on bail. Consequently, the petition for release was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of preserving evidence and facilitating a thorough investigation.