9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 220 - HC - CustomsSeeking grant of Bail - Smuggling - Gold Bars (Global Currency) - medium for exchange in criminal transactions or not - alleged commission of criminal conspiracy - terrorist activities - threatening the economic security and damaging the monetary stability of India as provided under Section 15(1) (a) (iiia) of UAP Act being a terrorist act punishable under Section 16 of the UAP Act - Scheduled offences or not - HELD THAT - The amendment was made to the definition of terrorist act by bringing in facets of terrorist acts by disturbing the economic stability of the country. The said amendment has been made pursuant to the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The said report claims that gold is a universally accepted currency, gold can be transferred anonymously and transactions are difficult to trace and verify. It was noted that gold is a form of global currency and also acts as a medium for exchange in criminal transactions. However, it may be noted that despite the fact that the report specifically deals with gold, the word gold have not been added while amending Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) UAP Act. Further possession, use, production, transfer of counterfeit currency or coin is per-se illegal and an offence, however, production, possession, use etc. of gold is not per-se illegal or an offence. Even import of gold is not prohibited but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. Thus mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act. It is evident that all the appellants except Dileep Laxman Patil and Vaibhav Sampat More are in custody since 21st September, 2020 and have spent more than 20 months in custody. The trial is likely to take some time, also for the reason that some of the appellants have filed petitions challenging the order granting sanction claiming that an alleged offence under the Customs Act cannot be brought in the realm of provisions of the UAP Act. This Court deems it fit to grant bail to the appellants. Consequently, appellants are directed to be released on bail on the terms and conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of denial of bail to appellants under UAP Act and IPC. 2. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 3. Interpretation of Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act concerning smuggling of gold. 4. Applicability of the Customs Act as a scheduled offense under the UAP Act. 5. Conditions for granting bail to the appellants. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Denial of Bail to Appellants: The appellants were aggrieved by the orders dated 10th May 2021 and 27th November 2021, which declined to grant bail. The appellants were intercepted with 504 gold bars weighing 83.621 kilograms, allegedly smuggled, and were charged under Sections 16/18/20 of the UAP Act and Sections 120B/204/409/471 IPC. Despite being granted bail in the customs case, they continued to be in custody due to the RC registered by NIA. 2. Admissibility of Statements Recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act: The prosecution's main evidence was the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The appellants contended these statements were inadmissible in a trial under the UAP Act. The Additional Solicitor General argued that such statements are admissible, citing the Supreme Court's decision in K.I. Pavunny vs. Assistant Collector, which held that statements under Section 108 could be used in trials under other statutes. 3. Interpretation of Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act: The appellants argued that smuggling of gold does not fall under "any other material" in Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act. They cited judgments from the Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts, which held that gold smuggling is not included in the term "other material" under this section. The courts emphasized that the Customs Act is not a scheduled offense under the UAP Act and that smuggling of gold, per se, does not threaten economic security or monetary stability of India. 4. Applicability of the Customs Act as a Scheduled Offense under the UAP Act: The appellants argued that the Customs Act is not included in the schedule of the UAP Act, and thus, offenses under the Customs Act cannot be prosecuted under the UAP Act. The court noted that the amendment to Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act did not explicitly include gold smuggling, despite recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) regarding the economic impact of gold smuggling. 5. Conditions for Granting Bail to the Appellants: Considering the appellants had been in custody for over 20 months and the trial was likely to take more time, the court deemed it fit to grant bail. The conditions for bail included furnishing a personal and surety bond of ?1 lakh, surrendering passports, not leaving the country without permission, reporting to the jurisdictional police station monthly, submitting residential addresses and mobile phone details, and keeping mobile phones in active mode with shared live locations for six months. Conclusion: The court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that mere smuggling of gold without any connection to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be deemed a terrorist act under the UAP Act. The appeals were disposed of with specific conditions for bail.
|
