2022 (7) TMI 933 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Foreign Gold Bars - recording of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The nature and gravity of allegation as also the fact that DRI officials have seized 3 kg gold bars worth Rs.1,58,20,500/- from the conscious possession of the present applicant and other three co-accused persons. During the search DRI officials found 3 yellow metal bars wrapped in papers from the specially built cavity under the seat adjacent to the Driver seat. Present applicant and other co-accused persons have admitted in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act that they have put gold bars under the seat, therefore, it may be presumed that present applicant had knowledge that smuggled gold was being carried in the said vehicle and he is involved in the illegal transaction of smuggling of huge quantity of gold. In view of the prima facie sufficient evidence available against the present applicant on record and bearing in mind that such a grave offence would cause damage to the economy of the nation and larger interest of the country, at this stage this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant, who is involved in serious offence of smuggling of huge quantity of gold. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Allegation of smuggling of gold bars under the Customs Act, 1962
- Prayers for bail application rejection based on evidentiary value of statements and economic impact

Bail Application under Section 439 of CrPC:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating innocence and false implication. The applicant, a driver, claimed ignorance of co-accused involvement in gold smuggling. He cooperated in the investigation, and his statement was recorded. The counsel argued that the complaint lacked approval under Section 137(1) of the Customs Act, and the offence was triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class with a maximum imprisonment of 7 years. Emphasizing bail as a rule, the applicant sought release on bail.

Allegation of Smuggling of Gold Bars under Customs Act, 1962:
The respondent opposed the bail application, alleging the applicant's involvement in smuggling. Three gold bars worth Rs.1,58,20,500 were recovered from the applicant and co-accused. The respondent claimed the applicant conspired in smuggling and had a history of offences. Additional charges under IPC were registered against him. The respondent argued that the evidence corroborated the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the economic impact of such offences. Citing relevant judgments, the respondent urged the court to reject the bail application to prevent evidence tampering.

Prayers for Bail Application Rejection based on Evidentiary Value of Statements and Economic Impact:
Considering the evidence, statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and the gravity of the offence, the court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant. The recovery of gold bars from the applicant's possession, along with his admission in the statement, indicated his involvement in the smuggling activity. Concerned about the economic implications and national interest, the court declined to grant bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offence and its potential impact on the economy. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, emphasizing the need to protect the economy and prevent further smuggling activities.