2014 (4) TMI 869 - HC - Customs

Validity of Special CJM (Custom) Order - Modification of bail order - Condition of bail - Seeking of permission before leaving country - u/s 482(b) Cr.P.C., u/s 132, 135 (1) (a) & (c) and 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 Held that - Without going into controversy as to whether the offences are bailable or not, the petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioners applies before the court below for permission to leave country they shall not be required to present before the court below and their application to leave country shall be decided preferably within a period of 15 days - However, it will be necessary that such application will be supported with an affidavit specifying the period of their absence and also the name of the country where they want to visit Decided partly in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of bail order imposed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. Imposition of condition requiring permission before leaving the country.
3. Nature of offences under Sections 132, 135(1)(a) & (c) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The High Court of Allahabad heard a petition filed under Section 482(b) of the Cr.P.C. seeking modification of a bail order dated 13.10.2009 by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate in a case related to Sections 132, 135(1)(a) & (c), and 104 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners, businessmen involved in Export and Import of Food-grains, challenged the condition imposed by the lower court requiring them to seek permission before leaving the country after being bailed out. They argued that seeking permission caused significant business losses and that the offences were bailable, making the condition unlawful. They offered to provide security and inform the court before leaving but requested the modification of the condition to remove the requirement for prior permission. On the other hand, the counsel for the Union of India contended that the offences were not bailable, although recent amendments had made some sections bailable. It was argued that the trial court had the authority to impose conditions on bail, including the requirement for permission to leave the country, to ensure the petitioners' appearance in court.

After considering the arguments, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing that if the petitioners applied for permission to leave the country, they would not need to appear before the lower court, and their application should be decided within 15 days. The court emphasized that the application must be supported by an affidavit stating the duration of their absence and the destination country. This decision aimed to balance the petitioners' business interests with the need to ensure their availability for trial, acknowledging the concerns raised by both parties regarding the impact of the permission requirement on the petitioners' business operations and the court's responsibility to oversee the trial process effectively.