9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Bail application u/s 439 for offences u/s 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Bail Application u/s 439: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439, arguing that the offence u/s 132 is bailable, and only the allegation of an offence u/s 135(1)(a) is the basis for the application. The counsel highlighted the amendment in 2004 to Section 137(3), making compoundable any offence under this chapter, including 135(1)(a), by the Chief Commissioner of Customs upon payment of a compounding amount. The counsel contended that no offence under 135(1)(a) was made out upon scrutiny of the complaint. Customs Department's Submission: The Customs Department argued that the ingredients of Section 135(1)(a) were evident in the case, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and opposing bail. Specific paragraphs in the complaint were referenced, detailing facts related to export amounts, benefits availed, and lack of proper export orders, indicating potential violations. Court's Analysis and Decision: Upon examination, the court noted the absence of clear allegations of misdeclaration of value in the complaint. Considering the overall circumstances and the compoundable nature of the offence u/s 135(1)(a), the court found no reason to deny bail. The petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, with the condition not to leave the country without court permission. The bail application was thus disposed of.
|
