2024 (8) TMI 1160 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - recovery of contraband items - Submission of applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case - HELD THAT - Looking into the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history and considering the facts and circumstances including that the counsel for the respondent did not dispute that the applicant is at flight risk and he is not in a position to influence any witness or tamper with the evidence; coupled with the fact that all contentions issues are yet to be tested in trial. Moreover, the co-accused Ameer Ahmad, Mohd. Rafeeq, Mohd Alkama, Mohd. Ahad and Mohd. Kashif have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 07.05.2024, 27.05.2024 and 25.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application nos.4723 of 2024, 4914 of 2024, (5768 of 2024, 5662 of 2024 and 5664 of 2024 respectively. Copies of the bail orders of Ameer Ahmad and Mohd. Rafeeq have been annexed as Annexure nos.5 and 6 of the bail application. Looking into the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned counsel for the Customs that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Let the applicant Zareef Ahmad involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned - application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 for Case Crime No.01/2024-2025 involving recovery of contraband items at Lucknow airport.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought bail under Section 135 of the Customs Act for a case involving the recovery of contraband items at Lucknow airport, including foreign cigarettes and currency. The applicant denied involvement and argued that the confiscated goods' value was below Rs.1 Crore, making him eligible for bail.

2. The applicant's counsel highlighted the lack of criminal history, willingness to participate in the trial, and pointed out that other co-accused had been granted bail. The Customs opposed bail, arguing that all co-accused were part of a collective operation to transport contraband items, exceeding Rs.1 Crore in value, and cited a previous case to support their stance.

3. The Court noted that the issue of whether the applicant acted in concert with co-accused required trial evidence. The Court acknowledged self-incriminating statements but emphasized their relevance in trial. The Court distinguished a previous case cited by the Customs, stating it did not create a binding precedent.

4. Considering the applicant's clean record, flight risk, and lack of influence on witnesses, the Court granted bail. The Court referenced bail granted to other co-accused and imposed conditions, including attendance at court dates, prohibition on leaving the country without court permission, and consequences for breaching bail conditions.

5. The Court's decision balanced the severity of the allegations, potential flight risk, and trial stage considerations, ultimately allowing the applicant's release on bail with specified conditions to ensure compliance and appearance in court proceedings.