2024 (8) TMI 33 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of Golden Bars - seeking grant of bail - prohibited goods or not - Section 135 Customs Duty Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the fact that in the matter trial has not started even yet and the complicity of the accused applicant is yet to be determined in trial, the gold seized is in the possession of the Department, the offence appears to be compoundable by virtue of Section 137(3) of the Customs Act and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial, no criminal antecedent to the credit of the applicant, his willingness and readiness to deposit the adequate customs duty over the said gold, the applicant is in jail since 7.1.2024, without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is opined that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant - Arvind Chandrakant Kadam involved in case crime no. NIL of 2024 under Section 135 Customs Duty Act, 1962, Police Station D.R.I., District Varanasi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - the bail application of the accused-applicant is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 135 of Customs Duty Act, 1962 for accused involved in smuggling case.

Analysis:
The bail application was filed by the accused, who was involved in a case under Section 135 of the Customs Duty Act, 1962, for smuggling golden bars. The prosecution alleged that the accused and a co-accused were intercepted at a railway station with smuggled gold bars. The recovered gold was valued at over Rs. 1.6 crores for the accused and over Rs. 41 lakhs for the co-accused. The accused denied involvement, claiming false implication and that the recovered gold was not his. The defense argued that the investigation was faulty, lacking evidence linking the gold to the accused. The defense also contended that the accused's alleged confession was false and that the offense was compoundable as the value of the gold was below Rs. 2 crores.

The defense further argued that the accused was ready to pay customs duty, as per a compounding notice issued by the Additional Commissioner. It was highlighted that a co-accused had been granted bail, indicating inconsistency in decisions. Reference was made to a government circular stating that no prosecution should be launched for certain offenses under the Customs Act. The defense emphasized that the accused had been in jail since the incident and was willing to cooperate in the trial.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail application, stating that the accused possessed a significant amount of illegal gold falling under the prohibited category. The prosecution argued that the accused was intercepted based on credible information and was acting as a carrier of smuggled gold. It was asserted that the offense was punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment under Section 135(i)(A) of the Customs Act. The prosecution contended that the purpose of the Customs Act was not only to recover duty but also to punish offenders.

After considering the submissions, the court granted bail to the accused. The court noted that the trial had not commenced, the gold was in the possession of the department, and the offense appeared to be compoundable. The court found no evidence that the accused would interfere with the trial, had no criminal antecedents, and was willing to pay customs duty. The court emphasized that the decision did not comment on the case's merits but concluded that the accused had made a case for bail. The court imposed conditions for the accused's release on bail, including appearing before the trial court, refraining from criminal activities, surrendering the passport, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation.