9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Granting anticipatory bail in a case involving evasion of customs duty and absconding accused. Analysis: The judgment involves the consideration of granting anticipatory bail in a case where the petitioner is accused of evasion of customs duty and being an absconder. The prosecution argued against granting bail, citing Supreme Court decisions that bail should not be granted to absconding accused. The defense pointed out that the main accused, the petitioner's brother, was the central figure in the alleged offenses related to duty evasion. The defense highlighted that the prosecution's case consistently implicated the brother and not the petitioner. Additionally, it was noted that the brother had been released due to incomplete investigation within the stipulated time, leading to allegations of harassment against the petitioner. The defense refuted claims of the petitioner being an absconder, providing evidence of his availability and willingness to cooperate with the investigation despite health issues. The court analyzed the facts and arguments presented by both parties. It observed that the petitioner could not be labeled as an absconder based on the circumstances and the prosecution's focus on the brother as the main accused. The court also considered that since the main accused was no longer in custody, keeping the petitioner detained would serve no purpose. Furthermore, the court noted that the offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act was compoundable and not necessarily warranting immediate arrest. Taking these factors into account, the court decided to grant bail to the petitioner upon arrest, subject to conditions including a personal bond and cooperation with the investigation. The petitioner was also directed not to leave the country without permission from the relevant authority, ensuring his presence for further legal proceedings.
|
