2021 (11) TMI 663 - DSC - Customs

Seeking grant of Bail - Illegal export - allegation against the accused is that he was illegally exporting the antique which is said to be the idol of Lord Vishnu - antique as alleged by the complainant or not - only ground urged for rejection of bail is that the accused did not co-operate through the investigation by not appearing before them - section 437 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - There is no whisper in the remand application or in the objection filed for the bail application that the investigation is still in progress. From the records produced before this court on behalf of the accused, it goes to show that the issuance of notice dated 28-07-2021 and 05-08-2021 is not disputed by the accused. On the other hand, the documents produced by the accused goes to show that he has issued reply in response to the summons referred above and in the said reply he has sought to providing with some documents by the department in connection with the allegations made against him. The complainant is silent about this reply in the remand application or in the objections filed by them for the bail application - From the endorsement made in the summons referred, it appears that the accused was served with the summons and was arrested. As such, it is obvious that the accused was unable to keep himself present before the Prl. Commissioner of Customs at Bangalore, though he had the intention of co-operating with the I.O, at Bangalore. As such, from the attending circumstances, it goes to show that the allegation made by the complainant that the accused did not cooperate with them for the investigation is totally misleading. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the investigation and also the trial. The bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Granting of bail in a non-bailable case is the discretion of the court which is to be exercised judiciously. There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the court. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. Here, in the case on hand, it is not the case of the I.O that investigation is pending - In the case on hand, the complainant instead of filing the complaint, has issued summons to the accused and got his arrested at Delhi only to see that he is behind bars for the best reasons known to the officers of the department. Hence, only the considerations which should normally weigh with the Court in the case of other non-bailable offences should also apply to this case though the offence alleged is Economic Offence. There is no hard and fast rule that the bail must be refused invariably in Economic offences. The contention of the prosecution during the course of arguments, that accused may tamper the evidences and will cause obstruction to the investigation is not acceptable for the reasons discussed supra. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case on hand with is discussed in detail, the accused is entitled for bail with conditions - the accused is released on bail, subject to executing the personal bond for ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) and furnishing one solvent surety for like sum or cash security of ₹ 50,000/- on the conditions imposed. Bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under section 437 of Cr.P.C. filed by the accused.
2. Determination of whether the accused is entitled to bail.

Detailed Analysis:
The accused was arrested for allegedly illegally exporting an antique idol of Lord Vishnu. The complainant contended that the offence committed by the accused is serious and punishable up to 7 years. The accused, on the other hand, claimed innocence, stating that the idol was not antique but made to look like one for higher market value. The accused argued that he is a permanent resident of Delhi and posed no flight risk. The court examined the evidence, including the remand application and documents, to determine the accused's involvement in the alleged offence.

The court found that the accused was the consigner of the idol in question, which was detained for appearing antique in nature. The idol was referred to the Archaeological Survey of India, identified as "Male Deity (Surya)," and certified as "Antiquity." The accused's statement indicated that the idol was manufactured to look antique for better market value. The complainant alleged that the accused failed to cooperate with the investigation, leading to his arrest. However, the accused's documents showed that he responded to summons and sought relevant documents from the department, indicating his willingness to cooperate.

The prosecution argued that economic offences are serious and releasing the accused on bail could impact the economy and public at large. The court emphasized that bail is not a form of punishment but a means to ensure the accused's attendance during investigation and trial. It noted that the investigation was not pending, and the only ground for denying bail was the accused's alleged lack of cooperation, which was refuted by the evidence presented. The court concluded that the accused was entitled to bail, considering the circumstances of the case.

Therefore, the court granted bail to the accused under section 437 of Cr.P.C. with specific conditions, including cooperating with the investigation, producing requested documents, providing contact details to the investigating officer, refraining from similar offences, and not leaving India without court permission. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the facts and legal principles governing bail in non-bailable offences, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail.