2001 (3) TMI 120 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
The petitioner's bail application was considered in light of the circumstances surrounding the case. The co-accused was caught smuggling watch movements and mobile phones, implicating the petitioner in the illegal activity. The petitioner had arranged for the co-accused's trip to Hongkong, funded the journey through a cheque, and was found waiting at the airport upon the co-accused's arrival. The petitioner's involvement in previous smuggling cases further strengthened the prosecution's argument against granting bail.

2. Admissibility of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

The defense argued that the statements made by the petitioner and the co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act were not voluntary and should not be relied upon. Citing legal precedents, the defense contended that such statements must pass the tests prescribed in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. However, the court noted that the admissibility of these statements would be determined during the trial based on the evidence presented.

3. Grounds for granting bail.

The defense emphasized that investigations were completed, there was no risk of the petitioner absconding, and suitable conditions could be imposed to ensure his presence during the trial. Referring to a relevant judgment, the defense argued for the petitioner's release on bail. However, the court found the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, his past involvement in smuggling activities, and the potential threat he posed to the economy as reasons to deny bail. The court expressed concerns about the petitioner continuing his illegal activities if released on bail, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

4. Trial proceedings and timeline.

While dismissing the bail application, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and complete the trial within one year, limiting adjournments to ensure swift justice. The court clarified that its decision should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial court, emphasizing the need for a fair and timely trial process.