2024 (6) TMI 790 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - detention u/s 112 and 135 of the Customs Acts, 1962 - quantum of punishment - HELD THAT - Apparently, for the offences under which the accusation has been made against the present petitioner, namely Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the maximum punishment which may be imposed is imprisonment up to seven years. It also appears that the provisions of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as provision of 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 does prima facie appears to be similar in nature, whereas the section is the power of the Gazetted Officers of customs to summon persons to give evidence and to produce document, whereas on the other hand, Section 41A relates to the duty of the Police Officer to issue notice to a person suspected of committing an offence to appear before him whose arrest is not required to be made. This Court is not inclined to deal with the said question in detail as this bail application may be considered even without considering the said issue, as from the materials available in the case diary, it appears that the investigation has fairly progressed and considering the period of detention already undergone by the present petitioner, i.e. 52 days, his further custodial detention does not appear to be necessary if he otherwise cooperates in the investigation. The above-named petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Application u/s 439 CrPC for bail in connection with DRI Case u/s 112 and 135 of Customs Acts, 1962.

Summary:

Accusation and Arrest: The petitioner was detained in connection with a case involving the transportation of smuggled poppy seeds and black pepper. The DRI intercepted a truck carrying the contraband and apprehended individuals, who implicated the petitioner in loading the goods. Subsequently, more contraband was seized from the petitioner's godown, leading to his arrest.

Mandatory Notice: The petitioner argued that no notice u/s 41A CrPC was served, and his arrest lacked justification. The petitioner's counsel contended that the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses does not warrant custodial detention without proper notice.

Legal Submissions: The petitioner's counsel highlighted the necessity of notice under Section 41A CrPC and compared it to the notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had been detained for 52 days, nearing the statutory limit, justifying a bail application.

Opposition and Investigation: The DRI opposed bail, citing the significant quantity of seized goods and the ongoing investigation. The DRI argued that custodial detention was crucial for completing the investigation, emphasizing the evasion of custom duty exceeding one crore rupees.

Judicial Decision: The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offenses and the necessity of notice under Section 41A CrPC. However, considering the progress of the investigation and the petitioner's detention period, bail was granted with specific conditions, including cooperation in the investigation and refraining from influencing potential witnesses.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted bail upon depositing a specified amount with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with potential witnesses. The bail application was disposed of with these observations.