2023 (12) TMI 617 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - illegal smuggling of gold from Dubai - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT - It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay 1977 (9) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT , Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT , Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh Ors., 2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT , Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee Anr., 2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar Anr., 2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Umesh Agrawal, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offence under Sections 135(1)(A)(B) & 135(1)(i)(A) of Customs Act, 1962 after rejection of bail by Sessions Judge.

Summary:

Allegations and Defense:
The applicant was implicated for possession of gold and jewelry allegedly smuggled from Dubai, seized from a vehicle. Applicant claimed innocence, stating no incriminating evidence was found in his possession. Asserted ownership of seized items, being a registered jeweler. Contended the matter is compoundable under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. Emphasized lack of criminal antecedents and commitment to judicial process. Cited heavy case pendency and reliance on a Supreme Court judgment.

Opposition and Concerns:
Department of Revenue Intelligence opposed bail, alleging the gold was illegally smuggled and removed evidence of foreign origin. Argued seriousness of allegations and potential repeat offenses if granted bail. Referred to Supreme Court judgments supporting their stance.

Judicial Decision:
Court considered nature of accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, accused's character, role, and involvement in the offense, and witness tampering risks. Referenced Supreme Court precedents. Granted bail due to public interest and circumstances, without expressing opinion on merits. Imposed bail conditions to prevent tampering, ensure appearance, and restrict criminal activities. Directed expeditious trial conclusion post-release.

Final Notes:
Order observations limited to bail determination, not case merits. Trial court retains independence in decision-making. Verification process for order authenticity outlined for compliance.