Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 516 - HC - CustomsSeeking grant of bail - Smuggling - Gold bars - reliability of statements u/s 108 of CA - HELD THAT - Considering the nature and gravity of allegation as also the fact that the applicant Vaibhav Jain along with Vishal Jain both of them bought 3 golden bars from co-accused Mukesh Valecha in lieu of cash of Rs.1, 56, 60, 000/- without any invoice which was allegedly recovered by DRI officers from the possession of the present applicant Vaibhav Jain co-accused Vishal Jain Dheeraj and Shankar Singh Yadav. From the investigation it is prima facie gathered that the present applicant along with other co-accused Vishal Jain Dheeraj and Shankar Singh Yadav went to the Ulhas Nagar to get 3 k.g. smuggled gold bars and they were carrying it in a specifically built secret coating in the vehicle bearing registration No. MP07-CK-8887 while DRI officers intercepted the vehicle on 12.4.2022. The applicant is found to be one of the master mind behind the whole gold smuggling activities. Call data records also reveal that present applicant Vaibhav Jain and co-accused Vishal Jain talked 40 times during the period 1.1.2022 to 15.4.2022. 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. This Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant - application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application for dispensing with putting seal on Vakalatnama. 2. Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Analysis: 1. Issue 1 - Application for dispensing with putting seal on Vakalatnama: The court allowed the application (IA No.13004/2022) for dispensing with putting a seal on the Vakalatnama, as it was duly signed by the non-applicants but the seal was not affixed due to a normal error. 2. Issue 2 - Bail application under Section 439 for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act: a. Prosecution's Case: The applicant was in custody for an offence related to smuggling 3 gold bars valued at Rs.1,58,20,500. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused individuals, was involved in smuggling foreign gold bars. The investigating authority intercepted a vehicle where the gold bars were found in a specially built cavity. The prosecution presented evidence linking the applicant to the offence through statements, call detail records, and the manner in which the gold was acquired. b. Defence's Case: The applicant claimed innocence, stating he was falsely implicated. He argued that the offence was civil in nature, he cooperated with the investigation, and there was no legal evidence connecting him to the crime. The defence highlighted the applicant's health issues and business activities to support the bail application. c. Court's Decision: The court considered the gravity of the offence, the value of the seized gold, and the potential threat to national financial interests posed by economic offences. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized the seriousness of economic offences and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases. Given the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court concluded that releasing the applicant on bail could hamper the investigation and lead to evidence tampering. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed at that stage, citing the need to protect fiscal and commercial interests. In conclusion, the court dismissed the bail application, considering the seriousness of the offence, the evidence presented, and the potential impact on the ongoing investigation.
|