9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality and propriety of bail granted to the accused under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act by the Additional Sessions Judge (A.S.J.). Detailed Analysis: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) challenged the order granting bail to the accused, who was allegedly involved in the smuggling of ball bearings worth a total of Rs. 1,42,69,165. The petitioner contended that the accused was the main person responsible for the illegal import, and the bail application was contested based on various grounds, including ongoing investigation and reference to a similar case where bail was denied. The petitioner raised concerns about the haste in granting bail, alleging impropriety on the part of the learned A.S.J., which could undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The petitioner argued that the accused's bail application should not have been granted, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to address crimes committed by deceptive individuals. The accused's counsel defended the granting of bail, explaining that the application was expedited due to prior commitments and travel plans. The accused's counsel presented a railway ticket as evidence of travel plans and refuted claims of impropriety, asserting that the bail was rightfully granted under the circumstances. The court noted the involvement of the accused in the smuggling operation, the rejection of a previous bail application, and the value of the seized goods. The initial rejection of bail was based on the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to establish the accused's connection to the smuggled goods. However, the subsequent grant of bail was justified based on the non-notification of the seized goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the accused's prolonged custody since the date of arrest. Discrepancies in the treatment of similar cases were highlighted, where bail was denied in one case despite lower values of smuggled goods and completion of investigation, raising concerns about inconsistent application of judicial discretion. The court acknowledged the discretionary nature of bail but emphasized the need for consistent and principled exercise of judicial discretion to maintain public trust in the justice system. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, considering the accused's prolonged custody, the completion of investigation, and the absence of compelling reasons to cancel the granted bail. The court emphasized the importance of preventing misuse of legal processes while balancing individual rights and the interests of justice.
|
