2023 (6) TMI 602 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - gold of foreign origin - seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - corroborative evidences that statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be read against the maker of the statement - HELD THAT - After perusing the averments made in the present bail application as well as rejection order, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected, at this stage - it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a bail application filed u/s 135 of the Customs Act in a case where gold bars were seized from the applicant at a railway station, leading to a dispute over the origin of the gold and alleged contravention of customs laws.

Details of the judgment:

1. Facts and Allegations:
The applicant was intercepted at a railway station with gold bars presumed to be of foreign origin. The applicant claimed the gold was ancestral, but officers pressurized him to confess otherwise. The gold was seized u/s 110 of the Customs Act.

2. Legal Submissions by Applicant:
The applicant's counsel argued that without corroborative evidence, the statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used against the applicant. Reference was made to the Gopi Chand Soni case for support.

3. Compounding Provision:
It was contended that if the gold is proven to be ancestral, the applicant could be liable for duty or penalty u/s 137(3) of the Act, allowing for compounding of offenses.

4. Opposition by Union of India:
The Union of India opposed bail, stating the gold lacked foreign markings and the applicant admitted to its illegal origin. The applicant's actions were seen as a contravention of various sections of the Customs Act.

5. Court Decision:
After hearing both sides, the Court found no strong grounds for granting bail to the applicant and rejected the bail application. However, it directed the trial to be expedited, aiming for conclusion within six months as per Section 309 Cr.P.C. and recent Supreme Court judgments.

6. Conclusion:
The bail application was rejected, emphasizing the need for speedy trial while citing relevant legal provisions and precedents.

This summary encapsulates the key issues, arguments, and the ultimate decision of the Allahabad High Court in the mentioned case involving a bail application under the Customs Act.