9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of retracted statements as evidence. 2. Influence of anticipatory bail order on subsequent bail decisions. 3. Relevance of socio-political status in bail considerations. 4. Proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Sessions Judge. 5. Likelihood of petitioners jumping bail or tampering with evidence. 6. Authority of the Sessions Court to suspend its own order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Retracted Statements as Evidence: Mr. Kapadia argued that the retracted statement of a co-accused is not sufficient evidence to involve the petitioners under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The court held that "merely because the statement of the co-accused recorded u/s. 108 of the Act is retracted subsequently by the accused, it cannot be said that it is no evidence." The court emphasized that a conviction can be based on a retracted statement if it is deemed reliable and trustworthy after considering the attending circumstances. Thus, the submission by Mr. Kapadia was rejected. 2. Influence of Anticipatory Bail Order on Subsequent Bail Decisions: Mr. Kapadia contended that the learned Sessions Judge should not have taken a different view from the anticipatory bail order granted by another judge, who observed that the statements were recorded under threats and coercion. The court clarified that it was premature to determine whether the statements were recorded under threats and coercion, as this can only be concluded after a full trial. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in not being bound by the anticipatory bail order and in considering the material on record independently. 3. Relevance of Socio-Political Status in Bail Considerations: The petitioners argued that their socio-political status should be considered for granting bail. The court rejected this argument, stating that "in the eye of law, all the accused persons are the same either they are rich or poor or having high status in society or in politics." The court emphasized that the nature of the offence, being a serious economic offence against the nation, outweighed the socio-political status of the petitioners. 4. Proper Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by the Sessions Judge: Mr. Kapadia argued that the Sessions Judge, exercising revisional powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C., should not have set aside the bail order merely because it was deemed improper. The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed an error by considering irrelevant factors in granting bail. Therefore, the Sessions Judge was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction to set aside the bail order, as failing to do so would have been a dereliction of duty. 5. Likelihood of Petitioners Jumping Bail or Tampering with Evidence: Although the Sessions Judge did not explicitly find that the petitioners would jump bail or tamper with evidence, the court noted the petitioners' conduct of evading summons and attempting to mislead the court. This conduct indicated a likelihood of jumping bail or tampering with evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioners should not be released on bail. 6. Authority of the Sessions Court to Suspend its Own Order: The court addressed the issue of the Sessions Judge suspending his own order canceling bail. It was held that "there is no provision in Cr.P.C. under which power is given to the Sessions Court to suspend its own order of cancelling the bail granted by the ld. Magistrate to the accused for enabling the accused to approach the High Court." The analogy of Section 389 Cr.P.C., which pertains to continuing bail post-conviction, was deemed inapplicable. The court emphasized that once bail is canceled, the accused should be taken into judicial custody to prevent potential misuse of bail. Conclusion: The court found no merit in any of the contentions raised by Mr. Kapadia and upheld the Sessions Judge's decision to set aside the bail order granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Revision Application was dismissed, affirming the cancellation of bail for the petitioners involved in the serious economic offence of smuggling silver worth over Rs. 6 crores.
|
