9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 969 - HC - CustomsBail application - Smuggling - Gold Bars - prohibited item - involved in commission of serious offence - HELD THAT - Even from the facts of the case, it is evident that the accused applicants are the carriers of the smuggled gold from Bangladesh. They are not the main persons who were involved in smuggling the gold. They had committed offence in greed of some money which was to be paid or might have been paid to them for transporting the smuggled gold from West Bengal to Delhi. However, they have been apprehended at Kanpur Central Railway Station on inputs of the Revenue Intelligence Department. The accused applicants are languishing in jail since 12.10.2020. The case is triable by the Magistrate. There is no criminal history of the accused applicants. Let accused-applicants Dhruv Maheshwari and Laxman Ram be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 2 lakhs each and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on being summoned with the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicants, Dhruv Maheshwari and Laxman Ram, filed a bail application seeking relief in Case Crime No.08 of 2020 under Sections 104, 110, 111, and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. They were apprehended at Kanpur Central Railway Station with smuggled gold bars from Bangladesh. The applicants were merely carriers of the gold, not the main smugglers, and had no criminal history. The prosecution argued that smuggling jeopardizes the economy by evading customs duty. The court considered the circumstances, noting the applicants' role as carriers and lack of criminal history, leading to the decision to grant bail. Issue 2: Arguments for Bail The applicants' counsel argued that they were only transporting the gold to Delhi for a third party and had been in custody since the date of apprehension. The defense emphasized the lack of criminal background and the applicants' limited role as carriers. It was contended that the applicants were motivated by financial gain and should be granted bail considering the nature of the offense and their cooperation during the investigation. Issue 3: Opposition to Bail The Union of India opposed the bail application, highlighting the seriousness of the offense and its impact on the country's economic stability. The prosecution argued that smuggling activities like this undermine the economic system by avoiding payment of customs duties. It was contended that releasing the applicants on bail would not be appropriate given the gravity of the offense and the potential economic repercussions. Issue 4: Judicial Decision After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the case record, the court found that the applicants were not the primary perpetrators but carriers of the smuggled gold. Given their lack of criminal history, the nature of the offense, and the fact that they had been in custody since the incident, the court granted bail to Dhruv Maheshwari and Laxman Ram. The bail was subject to conditions including a personal bond, sureties, and compliance with specific undertakings to ensure their presence during trial proceedings and prevent misuse of bail. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, covering the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the arguments presented by both parties, the court's decision, and the conditions imposed for granting bail to the applicants.
|
