2022 (1) TMI 577 - HC - Customs

Cancellation of bail granted - Smuggling of Wrist Watches - burden to prove under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 - offences under sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - It is settled that once bail granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstances which are not conducive to fair trial. It cannot be cancelled on a request from the side of the complainant/investigating agency unless and until it is established that the same is being misused and it is no longer conducive in the interest of justice to allow the accused any further to remain on bail. No doubt, the bail can be cancelled only in those discerning few cases where it is established that a person to whom the concession of bail has been granted is misusing the same. In the instant case, there are no allegations of any tampering with the evidences. There are also no allegations that the respondents are at flight risk or there is any likelihood of absconding. The petitioner department has not been able to make out a case of supervening circumstances on the basis of which the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled and nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents have towering personalities that their mere presence out on bail would in any manner thwart the further investigation (if any) of the case or that they are in any manner threat to the fair trial of this case. Nothing has been brought on record that the respondents in any manner have violated the terms and condition of the order granting them bail. Petitioner department also failed to answer that what purpose would be served if the bail is cancelled and what further enquiry is to be done after cancellation of bail by taking them into custody - there are no reason for cancellation of Bail - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Petition filed seeking setting aside of bail granted under sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner, Customs department, filed petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the bail granted to the respondents for offences under sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the recovery and seizure of watches worth ?51,55,887 from the respondents upon their arrival at the airport. The respondents admitted to the recovery in their voluntary statements. The petitioner argued that the bail should be cancelled as the respondents were part of a smuggling and hawala racket with international ramifications, and the investigation was ongoing. The petitioner contended that bail should not have been granted at the initial stage of investigation, especially in economic offences. However, the respondents had already paid the customs duty and penalty, and there were no allegations of tampering with evidence or flight risk.

The petitioner claimed that the bail should be cancelled as the watches seized were covered under the Customs Act, and the respondents were involved in smuggling and a hawala racket. On the other hand, the respondents argued that they had complied with the conditions set by the court, were available for trial, and had not tampered with evidence. The respondents highlighted that the watches had been released by the customs authority, and they had paid the penalty. The court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that bail should not be cancelled without supervening circumstances that would affect a fair trial. The court noted that there were no grounds for cancellation as there were no allegations of tampering with evidence or flight risk.

The court cited the Supreme Court's guidelines on bail cancellation, stating that very compelling reasons are required for such an action. The court emphasized that bail should not be cancelled without considering supervening circumstances that would impact a fair trial. In this case, the court found no evidence of such circumstances and dismissed the petitions seeking to cancel the bail. The court concluded that the bail should not be cancelled mechanically and without valid reasons, especially when there is no indication of misuse or violation of bail conditions by the respondents.