2016 (10) TMI 668 - HC - Customs

Import of Gold prohibited item / smuggling - import from Nepal - Offence triable by Magistrate Ist Class - offence bailable or non-bailable - Maximum punishment provided is 7 years imprisonment - Held that - Keeping in view the maximum sentence provided in the offence and submission that possession of Gold, if not imported through Nepal, is not unauthorized, as the submission is, in the opinion of the Court, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the applicant in jail in any more, keeping in view the ratio of judgment given by Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT . Applicant-Vinod Kumar Verma involved in Complaint Crime No. 41/2015, Complaint No. 0000105 of 2016, under Sections 104, 110, 111, 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, Police Station D.R.I., Lucknow, is directed to be released on bail subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Sections 104, 110, 111, 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad in 2016 involved a bail application under Sections 104, 110, 111, and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant's counsel argued that the offence was triable by a Magistrate of the First Class and that no prohibited item was found in the applicant's possession. They contended that the recovered item was not prohibited as it was not imported through Nepal, and the stipulation in the statement was later added. The counsel highlighted that although the offence had become non-bailable, the criteria for bail remained unchanged, and the maximum punishment was 7 years of imprisonment. The applicant had been in jail since November 21, 2015. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel argued that economic offences like these could harm the nation's economic structure, suggesting that the prevalent view of a maximum sentence of seven years should not be taken lightly. The Revenue's counsel also expressed concerns that the accused might abscond after release, leading to trial delays. It was acknowledged that the gold in question was brought from Nepal, which was not permitted.

The Court considered the maximum sentence for the offence and the fact that possession of gold, if not imported through Nepal, was not unauthorized. Referring to a judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I., the Court concluded that detaining the applicant further would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the applicant on bail under specific conditions. These conditions included attending the trial on each date, surrendering the passport to the Magistrate, providing sureties of Rupees One Crore, filing an undertaking not to seek adjournments during witness presence, remaining present in court personally or through counsel, and facing consequences for misuse of bail, including non-appearance after a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The applicant was also required to be present during key trial stages like opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Failure to comply with these conditions could result in the Court treating it as an abuse of liberty of bail and taking appropriate legal action.