2019 (4) TMI 495 - HC - Customs

Grant of Regular Bail - smuggling - foreign currency - reliability of statements - Held that - In the present case, admittedly, petitioner was arrested on 17-7-2018 at the Jaipur International Airport. Petitioner was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value to the tune of Rupees thirty five lacs fifty thousand and twenty six. Son of the petitioner was arrested in November, 2017 and was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value to the tune of Rupees ninety six lacs twenty four thousand and twelve. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not an accused along with his son in the case registered against the son of the petitioner in November, 2017. Arpit Jain son of the petitioner is not an accused in the present case. Hence, it would be a debatable issue as to whether the amount recovered from the son of the petitioner in another criminal case can be clubbed with the present recovery from the petitioner. The said aspect can be gone into by the Trial Court during trial. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under Customs Act, 1962 - Clubbing of currency recovered from petitioner and his son - Interpretation of statements under Section 108 of the Act - Legal precedents on admissibility of statements before Customs officials - Consideration of economic offences in judicial proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for offences under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was apprehended with foreign and Indian currency, and the issue arose regarding the total amount of currency carried by the petitioner. The petitioner's son was also involved in a separate case with a larger sum of currency. The question of clubbing the currency recovered from the son with that of the petitioner was raised, based on statements made under Section 108 of the Act. The Trial Court was tasked with determining if the son's currency could be combined with the petitioner's in the present case.

The Union of India opposed the bail petition, arguing that the currency amounts from both the petitioner and his son should be aggregated. Legal precedents, including the decision in Illias v. Collector of Customs, were cited to support this argument. The admissibility of statements made before Customs officials under Section 108 of the Act was emphasized, as seen in the case of Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India. The court highlighted that such statements could be used as substantive evidence in customs contravention cases.

Furthermore, the court considered the significance of economic offences in judicial proceedings, as illustrated in the case of State of Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr. The judgment emphasized the importance of holding economic offenders accountable to maintain trust in the justice system. Additionally, the petitioner's counsel relied on previous decisions by the High Court of Rajasthan in bail applications related to similar cases.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition for bail without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The petitioner was granted bail, subject to the Trial Court's satisfaction. The issue of clubbing currency recovered from the son with that of the petitioner was left for the Trial Court to decide during the trial proceedings.