2006 (12) TMI 11 - HC - Customs

Bail- Offence of applicant regarded as bailable offence Payment of duty liability before court not sufficient for bail Granting of bail subject to certain restrictions.

Summary

Issues:
Application for bail under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Allegation of fraudulent import of goods - Rejection of bail application by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Interpretation of bailable offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Precedents from High Courts and Supreme Court - Concerns regarding tampering with witnesses and investigation - Conditions for granting bail.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with an application for bail in connection with an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, involving the fraudulent import of fabrics against an Advance Licence under the DEEC Scheme. The applicant was arrested by the 2nd Respondent under Section 104 of the Customs Act. The primary contention was that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) is bailable, and reliance was placed on judgments from the High Court and Supreme Court regarding the bailability of such offences.

The applicant's bail application was initially rejected by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, leading to a subsequent bail application. The respondents argued that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) is non-bailable, emphasizing ongoing investigations, the involvement of other individuals, and potential economic repercussions. Concerns were raised about witness tampering, interference with the investigation, and the pending Supreme Court matter.

The court considered the arguments from both sides and highlighted the need to follow binding precedents unless shown otherwise. It emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and propriety in adhering to established legal interpretations. Despite the ongoing investigations and concerns raised by the respondents, the court concluded that the offence in question was bailable based on previous judgments and granted bail to the applicant.

The court imposed various conditions for the bail, including a bail amount, reporting requirements, surrendering the passport, restrictions on leaving the country, cooperating with the trial court, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The judgment also clarified that observations in the order should not be construed as findings on the case's merits during the trial. Additionally, the court allowed the applicant's release on cash bail for a specific period considering the duration of detention and the bailable nature of the offence.