2023 (3) TMI 1181 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - imported goods were allowed for movement without payment of customs duty from one warehouse to another warehouse on the basis of the bond executed by the importer - applicant submitted that all the allegations raised by learned counsel for the Custom Department, are against Mohd. Jahas and he is main accused for importing the goods and he has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench by detail order. HELD THAT - Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and the fact that the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused, who have been granted bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. Another, 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed, subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Bail application under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 for alleged fraudulent diversion of imported goods to evade customs duty.

The bail application was filed by the applicant seeking release during the trial in a case involving the importation of betel nut splits. The applicant, a travel agent, claimed innocence stating he had no involvement in the alleged offense. It was argued that the main culprit, Mohd. Jahas, who imported the goods, had already been granted bail. The applicant's role was deemed indistinguishable from the co-accused, hence he sought bail on the grounds of parity. The court considered the facts, the nature of the offense, and the similarity to the co-accused's case, ultimately granting bail to the applicant.

The Custom Department vehemently opposed the bail application, alleging the applicant's involvement in the fraudulent diversion of imported goods to evade customs duty. It was claimed that the applicant, along with the main accused, planned the diversion of goods and took delivery of the diverted goods. The department argued that the applicant was a beneficial owner of the goods and involved in criminal conspiracy, thus should not be granted bail. However, the defense contended that all allegations were against the main accused, Mohd. Jahas, who had already been granted bail.

The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, the nature of the offense, and the involvement of the applicant compared to the co-accused, granted bail to the applicant. The court emphasized that the decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but found that the applicant had made a case for bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions, including not tampering with evidence, cooperating in the trial, and refraining from criminal activities, with the provision that any breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation.