2024 (1) TMI 1321 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - smuggling of foreign origin gold from Bangladesh - offence punishable under sections 135 (i)(a) and 135 (1)(b) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that both the petitioners were caught red handed by the team of DRI and they were indulged in smuggling of foreign origin gold, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and, as such, their prayer for bail stands rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial - bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under sections 135 (i)(a) and 135 (1)(b) of the Customs Act.
2. Allegation of smuggling of foreign origin gold from Bangladesh.
3. Falsely implicated petitioners denying possession of smuggled gold.
4. Seizure of gold without proper documentation or basis.
5. Lack of definition of smuggled goods in Customs Act.
6. Discrepancy in place of recovery and seizure of gold.
7. Opposition to bail application by DRI.
8. Leniency in cases involving large quantities of smuggled gold.
9. Violation of procedural safeguards and relevant sections of the Customs Act.
10. Corroborative evidence against the petitioners.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought bail in a case involving alleged smuggling of foreign origin gold from Bangladesh under sections 135 (i)(a) and 135 (1)(b) of the Customs Act. The FIR stated that the petitioners were apprehended with smuggled gold bullion at Patna Railway Junction. The petitioners denied involvement, claiming false implication and lack of valid documentation for the seized gold. They argued that the DRI's case was fabricated, lacking substantive evidence and violating procedural safeguards.

The petitioners contended that the gold seizure lacked proper identification markings to establish foreign origin or smuggling, challenging the basis for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. They highlighted the absence of a statutory definition of smuggled goods, emphasizing the burden on the DRI to prove smuggling elements. The discrepancy between the place of recovery and seizure location raised doubts about the case's integrity.

The DRI opposed the bail application, citing the petitioners' admission to transporting the seized gold and the detrimental impact of leniency on anti-black money efforts. The court noted corroborative evidence against the petitioners, including untraceable residential addresses during the investigation. Ultimately, the court rejected the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of smuggling offenses and directing the trial court to expedite proceedings for a swift trial.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the gravity of smuggling offenses, the importance of procedural adherence, and the need for expeditious trial proceedings in cases involving significant quantities of smuggled goods. The decision to deny bail reflects the court's stance on combating illegal activities and ensuring accountability in customs enforcement.