2022 (11) TMI 517 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of second bail - Smuggling of foreign origin Gold bars - recording of statement of accused persons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Considering the nature and gravity of allegation as also the fact that applicant s earlier bail application was rejected by this Court on merit after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant in this repeated application was considered at the earlier occasion, therefore, there are no material changes in the circumstances in which the applicant is entitled for bail. Although after rejection of the earlier application of the applicant respondent has collected so many evidence including the call detail record. The revised guideline issued by the Joint Commissioner, Customs (New Delhi) does not support the case of the present applicant. Therefore, this court is not inclined to allow this repeated bail application. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The applicant was in jail in connection with a case registered under Section 135(1)(A) and 135(1)(B) of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution's case involved intercepting a vehicle and finding 3 gold bars wrapped in papers from a cavity under the seat. The accused persons had no legal documents for the gold bars and admitted to smuggling them. The applicant's earlier bail application was rejected, but he filed a second one citing revised guidelines for arrest and bail under the Customs Act, stating his minimal involvement, no recovery from him, and family hardships. The respondent opposed the bail, claiming the applicant's habitual offending behavior, seriousness of the offence, and lack of material changes since the earlier rejection.

The court considered the arguments, case diary, and previous rejection of bail. It noted the absence of material changes in circumstances to warrant bail, despite the applicant's contentions. The court found the evidence collected post the earlier rejection, including call detail records, and the revised guidelines from the Joint Commissioner did not support the applicant's case. Consequently, the repeated bail application was dismissed, emphasizing the lack of merit and no entitlement to bail based on the existing circumstances.