9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 382 - HC - CustomsSeeking grant of bail - smuggling of currency notes of U.S. Dollars - violation of provisions of section 77 of the Customs Act 1962 and Foreign Exchange Management Regulations 2000 and Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 - HELD THAT - The applicant was intercepted by the D.R.I. officials at CCS International Airport Lucknow and from the other co-accused persons the gold bullion was recovered whereas the applicant is connected with the present matter as the D.R.I. is said to be collected the evidence of conversations in between Ratnesh Pandey one of the co-accused person and the present applicant but the fact remains that there is no strong evidence that in consonance with the conversations any transaction has ever been done or the D.R.I. has failed to place any evidence that those conversations were specifically with respect to the offence which is said to be committed. Though it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta Vs State of West Bengal 1968 (10) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT that the custom officers are not the police officers and the statement recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 is admissible in evidence though there seems to be no quarrel regarding the same whereas the further issue is that can the statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 blindly be accepted without any corroboration of other evidences? Infact the admissibility of an evidence is one aspect of the matter and the conviction can lead only on the basis of the confessional statement recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 is the other aspect of the matter and the answer would be no. This court is of the opinion that the confessional statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act 1962 cannot blindly be accepted unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence/material as the same would not lead to conviction. The examination of confessional statement of the accused is essentially required so as to find out that the same is not taken under coercion or under extraneous influences. The trial court has also to be conscious enough while examining the correctness and voluntariness of the nature of the statement of the accused. Conclusion - Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction nature of supporting evidence prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any view on the merits of the case this is found to be a fit case of bail. Bail granted subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - Bail application allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include: 1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, given the allegations of smuggling and the evidence presented. 2. The admissibility and sufficiency of the confessional statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether it can be relied upon without corroboration. 3. The significance of the applicant's alleged involvement in the smuggling activities as inferred from call records and other circumstantial evidence. 4. Consideration of the applicant's criminal history and its impact on the decision to grant bail. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Bail under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 The legal framework for granting bail in cases under Section 135 of the Customs Act involves assessing the nature of the offense, the evidence available, and the potential risk of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing. The Court considered the applicant's argument that no custodial interrogation is necessary since the investigation is complete and the complaint has been filed. The applicant's counsel emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the offense, arguing that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The Court noted that the applicant has been in custody since August 2024 and that the charges have not yet been framed. It also considered the applicant's assertion that he poses no flight risk and will cooperate with the trial proceedings. 2. Admissibility of Confessional Statement under Section 108 The Court examined the admissibility of the confessional statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which is not considered equivalent to a police statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The Court referenced precedents, including the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal, to establish that such statements are admissible in evidence. However, the Court emphasized that a conviction cannot be based solely on an uncorroborated confessional statement, especially if it is retracted or claimed to be coerced. The Court highlighted the need for corroboration by independent evidence to support the confessional statement, citing the judgment in Union of India vs. Kisan Ratan Singh and others, which stresses the importance of verifying the voluntariness and truthfulness of such statements. 3. Circumstantial Evidence and Alleged Involvement The Court considered the evidence presented by the prosecution, including call records indicating frequent communication between the applicant and co-accused, suggesting coordination in the smuggling activities. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide strong evidence linking these communications to the specific offense in question. The Court also noted the absence of any direct recovery of gold from the applicant's possession, which weakened the prosecution's case against the applicant. 4. Criminal History and Risk Assessment The applicant's criminal history was considered, but the Court found that it was adequately explained in the bail application. The Court assessed the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and found no substantial basis for such concerns, given the completion of the investigation and filing of the complaint. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act requires corroboration by independent evidence to be sufficient for conviction. It emphasized that the statement should be voluntary and trustworthy, and the trial court must carefully examine its voluntariness and truthfulness. The Court determined that the applicant should be granted bail, given the lack of strong evidence against him, the completion of the investigation, and the absence of any immediate risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing. The Court imposed specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance with trial proceedings, including the requirement to appear in court and not to intimidate witnesses. In conclusion, the Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing the reformative theory of punishment and the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, while making it clear that the observations in the order are limited to the bail application and do not reflect on the merits of the case.
|
