9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Regular bail under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Interpretation of Table II of the First Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Classification of offences - Bail granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi - Merits of releasing the petitioners on bail. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the disposal of three bail applications filed by the petitioners-accused facing trial under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Table II of the First Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the classification of offences based on the term of imprisonment. The petitioners argued that since the offence they are charged with is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years, it falls under the third entry of Table II, making it a bailable offence. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the word 'for' in the table refers to the term of imprisonment that may extend up to the specified period of punishment, thus including offences where the punishment may not reach the full term. The court cited a previous decision to support this interpretation, highlighting the importance of the specific wording in determining the classification of offences. Regarding the bail granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, the petitioners contended that the bail given was regular up to the period they were taken into custody. The court examined the order sheets and noted that the interim bail granted was not based on merits but rather as a temporary measure until a certain date. Therefore, the court rejected the argument that the bail was regular and pointed out that the petitioners were eventually ordered into judicial custody after the bail was declined. Lastly, the court addressed the merit of releasing the petitioners on bail based on the argument that they could potentially be let off by imposing a fine under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. After reviewing the complaint alleging customs duty evasion worth crores of rupees by the petitioners, the court concluded that considering the gravity of the allegations and the circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners. Consequently, all three bail applications were dismissed by the court, denying the petitioners' request for release on bail.
|
