2022 (7) TMI 988 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of Bail - Smuggling - Foreign Gold - case of appellant is that their confessional statements were forcefully extracted by the DRI officers - it is also alleged that mandatory compliance of Section 154 to 157 of Cr.P.C. is not done by the DRI officers - HELD THAT - Considering the nature and gravity of allegation as also the fact that present applicant Mukesh Valecha admits in his confessional statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 that he has supplied the said 3 gold bars of foreign origin having the same marking to Vishal Jain and Vaibhav Jain and he has not been issued any sale invoice for the said 3 foreign origin gold bars having weight of 3 k.g. worth Rs.1,58,20,500/-, which was allegedly recovered by the DRI officials from the possession of the co-accused Vishal Jain, Vaibhav Jain, Dheeraj and Shankar Singh Yadav. Considering the value of gold already seized, the manner in which the gold were received in this country and the attendant circumstances, there can be no doubt that the occurrence is flagrant violation of the provisions of Customs Act. The relevant provisions of the Customs Act are intended to protect the fiscal and commercial interest of the nation. An offence like this must be viewed with all the seriousness. There is no doubt that the instant release of the applicant, who is involved in such activities, would hamper the investigation and the applicant may tamper with the evidence. At this stage this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations of smuggling of foreign gold bars and related offences under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Contention of the applicant being innocent and falsely implicated.
4. Arguments regarding the applicant's involvement in economic offences and previous criminal record.
5. Consideration of bail application in light of gravity of allegations and potential tampering of evidence.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking release from custody since being arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 135(1)(A) and 135(1)(B) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was innocent, falsely implicated, and had no incriminating material found during searches. The applicant's confessional statements were allegedly extracted forcefully, and compliance with Cr.P.C. procedures was questioned, emphasizing the applicant's family circumstances and lack of evidence against him.

2. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in smuggling foreign gold bars, citing intercepted information leading to the seizure of gold bars from a vehicle. The applicant was accused of being part of a group transporting smuggled gold bars without legal documentation. The respondent opposed the bail application, highlighting the seriousness of economic offences, the applicant's alleged habitual offending nature, and concerns about tampering with evidence and hindering investigations if released on bail.

3. The court considered the arguments, evidence, and gravity of the allegations. The applicant's admission in a confessional statement regarding supplying foreign origin gold bars to other accused was noted. Reference was made to the distinct nature of statements recorded under the Customs Act compared to police investigations. The court also mentioned the applicant's chequered history, including a previous offence related to smuggling, indicating a possible pattern of habitual offending behavior.

4. Citing precedents like the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, the court emphasized the seriousness of economic offences and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases. The court highlighted the potential threat economic offences pose to national financial health and the importance of protecting fiscal and commercial interests. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the court concluded that releasing the applicant at that stage could hamper the investigation and lead to evidence tampering, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the bail application, citing the flagrant violation of Customs Act provisions, the seriousness of the alleged offence, and the potential risks associated with releasing the applicant. The decision was based on the value of gold seized, the nature of the offence, and the need to safeguard national interests and prevent interference with the legal process.