2020 (9) TMI 396 - HC - Customs

Release of the applicant on bail - Smuggling - Gold Biscuits - prayer of bail opposed on the ground that as the applicant could not show any relevant paper regarding the article (gold) obtained from the possession of the applicant of such quantity, it is deemed proper that the said material was being smuggled - statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act, admissible evidence or not - HELD THAT - Considering to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Prayer of Bail rejected.

Issues Involved:

1. Bail application under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Classification of the offense as bailable or non-bailable.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The applicant sought release on bail in Case Crime No. Nil of 2020 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, involving alleged smuggling of gold biscuits. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was merely transporting gold biscuits for another individual, D.K. Khan, from Guwahati to Kanpur and that there was no evidence of smuggling. The counsel also contended that the applicant's statement recorded by Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act was coerced and not voluntary.

Conversely, the counsel for the opposite party opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant failed to produce relevant documentation for the gold in his possession, implying smuggling activities. The counsel cited several Supreme Court judgments to support this claim.

2. Admissibility of Statements Recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act:

The opposite party's counsel referenced the Supreme Court's decision in K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, which clarified the powers of Customs Officers, including the authority to search, arrest, and collect evidence. The judgment emphasized that statements recorded under Section 108 are admissible as evidence, as Customs Officers are empowered to summon individuals to give evidence and produce documents without magisterial intervention.

Further, the Union of India v. Padam Narain Agarwal case reiterated that Section 108 enables Customs Officers to elicit the truth from the person examined, and such statements are distinct from those recorded by Police Officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court concluded that the applicant's argument regarding the inadmissibility of his statement was unsustainable.

3. Classification of the Offense as Bailable or Non-Bailable:

The applicant's counsel argued that the offense was bailable, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, which suggested that offenses under the Customs Act could be bailable if the value involved was below ?1 crore. However, the opposite party's counsel countered this by citing the case of Mahendra Soni v. State of U.P., where it was held that smuggling gold bars valued above ?1 crore constitutes a non-bailable offense under Sections 104(6)(c) and 104(6)(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The court considered the arguments and judgments presented by both parties. It noted that the applicant was apprehended with a significant quantity of smuggled gold and failed to provide valid documentation. The court also recognized that the applicant's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act indicated involvement in smuggling activities.

Conclusion:

After thorough consideration of the nature, gravity, and evidence of the offense, along with relevant legal precedents, the court concluded that the applicant did not make a sufficient case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

← Previous Next →