2024 (9) TMI 1433 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of regular bail - smuggling of foreign origin gold - offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - implication and coercion by custom officers or not - HELD THAT - Considering mainly the facts that petitioners have clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners, rather the recovery have been made from the vehicle in question and the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioners in the FIR as well as the petitioners period of custody, let the petitioners, above-named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, in connection with Economic (DRI) Case No. 22(O) of 2024, arising out of Unit Case No. 31 of 2023-24, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Bail application allwoed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application for petitioners in custody for alleged smuggling of gold.
2. Allegations of false implication and coercion by custom officers.
3. Recovery of gold from the vehicle and statements of the petitioners.
4. Legal provisions regarding confiscated goods and bail conditions.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought regular bail in connection with an Economic (DRI) case involving the alleged smuggling of gold bullions. The prosecution's case stated that the petitioners were intercepted in a car with foreign origin gold bullions smuggled from Bangladesh. The petitioners claimed innocence, stating they were only drivers and unaware of the gold in the car. They alleged threats and coercion by custom officers to give false statements in court. The recovery of gold from the car, not the petitioners' possession, was highlighted. The petitioners later submitted statements to the trial court contradicting their earlier statements made under duress.

The defense argued that the recovered gold was from the vehicle, not the petitioners, and relied on previous bail orders in similar cases. They contended that the recovered gold was not prohibited but restricted goods, subject to duty payment. The DRI countered, stating the petitioners admitted involvement in transporting smuggled gold and identified the owner of the gold and the car. The court considered the petitioners' clean antecedents, lack of direct possession of the gold, and the nature of allegations in granting bail.

The bail conditions included cooperation in the trial, physical presence on all court dates, and prohibition from tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court ordered bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with sureties and mandated verification of criminal antecedents. One bailor had to be a blood relative/close relative of the petitioners. The judgment balanced the petitioners' rights with the seriousness of the allegations and the need to ensure trial attendance and evidence integrity.