2025 (2) TMI 433 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of bail - smuggling - admissibility of statements - non-corroborated statements can be bare basis of conviction of an accused or not? - HELD THAT - This court is of the opinion that the confessional statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 cannot blindly be accepted unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence/material as the same would not lead to conviction. The examination of confessional statement of the accused is essentially required so as to find out that the same is not taken under coercion or under extraneous influences. The trial court has also to be conscious enough while examining the correctness and voluntariness of the nature of the statement of the accused. Though it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta Vs State of West Bengal reported in 1968 (10) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT that the custom officers are not the police officers and the statement recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 is admissible in evidence though there seems to be no quarrel regarding the same whereas the further issue is that can the statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 blindly be accepted without any corroboration of other evidences ? Infact the admissibility of an evidence is one aspect of the matter and the conviction can lead only on the basis of the confessional statement recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 is the other aspect of the matter and the answer would be no. This court is of the opinion that the confessional statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962 cannot blindly be accepted unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence/material as the same would not lead to conviction. The examination of confessional statement of the accused is essentially required so as to find out that the same is not taken under coercion or under extraneous influences. The trial court has also to be conscious enough while examining the correctness and voluntariness of the nature of the statement of the accused. It has also been noticed that identically situated co-accused namely Avinash Singh has already been enlarged on bail. Further the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained in paragraph 5 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 07-08-2024 coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Conclusion - Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction nature of supporting evidence prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any view on the merits of the case this is a fit case of bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Application allowed.

The judgment from the Allahabad High Court concerns a bail application filed by an applicant accused under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The primary legal issues considered by the Court include the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, particularly the confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the applicant's alleged involvement in smuggling activities, and the conditions under which bail should be granted.

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

Whether the confessional statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, is sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration.
Whether the applicant's involvement in the alleged smuggling activities is sufficiently established by the evidence presented.
Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the offense, evidence available, and the applicant's conduct.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis

Confessional Statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court examined the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, which established that statements made to Customs officers are admissible as they are not considered police officers.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that while such statements are admissible, they cannot solely form the basis of conviction without corroboration by independent and reliable evidence.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the confessional statement of the applicant, in isolation, lacked corroboration and thus could not be relied upon for conviction.

Evidence of Involvement in Smuggling Activities

Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence included call records showing communication between the applicant and co-accused, and the applicant's travel details. However, no gold was recovered from the applicant.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court observed that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the applicant's active involvement in the smuggling operations.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued for the lack of direct evidence and the need for parity with a co-accused who was granted bail. The DRI opposed, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the applicant's alleged coordination in smuggling activities.

Grant of Bail

Relevant Legal Framework: The Court considered the principles of bail, including the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the applicant's conduct.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the reformative theory of punishment and the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, which upholds the right to personal liberty.
Conclusions: The Court found the applicant to be a fit case for bail, noting the lack of strong evidence against him, the completion of the investigation, and the applicant's undertaking to cooperate with the trial.

Significant Holdings

Core Principles Established:

The confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act requires corroboration by independent evidence to be relied upon for conviction.
Economic offenses, while serious, require substantial evidence for denial of bail, particularly when the investigation is complete and no risk of evidence tampering is present.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

The Court granted bail to the applicant, imposing conditions to ensure his cooperation with the trial process and prevent tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
The Court clarified that the observations made in the order are confined to the bail application and should not influence the trial's merits.

← Previous Next →