9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that goods must be smuggled.It means goods of foreign origin and imported from abroad. There must be something proving their importation from abroad. Only an account of being unaccounted they cannot be inferred to be smuggled, they may be stolen too. Applicant claims that he has no passport and will not leave the country his whole family and business is at Kannuaj and Kanpur. There is no possibility of tampering with witnesses. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of DATARAM SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. [ 2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT] and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant 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 conditions imposed - Bail application allowed. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27176 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 27- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnesses were brought by D.G.I. Officers and were not local witnesses. Applicant is willing to deposit customs duty, as may be applicable regarding ceased currency amount under protest and without waving his right to contest the alleged liability. The investigation has already been completed against the applicant and hence keeping him in jail will be of no avail. Applicant has no passport and will comply the conditions as may be imposed by this court. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case laws, Shevantilal Karsondas Modi Vs. The State of Maharasashtra and another, (1979),2 Supreme Court Cases,58; Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2008) 16, Supreme Court Cases,417; Union of India Vs. Kisan Ratan Singh and others,(2020) 372 ELT, 714; Gopi Chand Soni Vs. CESTAT, 2011 SCC Online All, 2358 Learned counsel for the opposite party, Shri Dhanjay Awasthi, has vehemently opposed the bail application and relying on his counter affidavit he has submitted that illegal gold of foreign marking and cash has been recovered from the applicant. The sanctioning authority has directed the prosecution of the applicant. He has relied upon the following case law:- Zaki Is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of R.S. Company (Supra) has held that there being cogent, clear and clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of tobacco product, Gutkha, the tribunal was justified in concluding that it was done by assessee without payment of excise duty. In the case of Romesh Chandra Metha(supra) the Apex Court held that custom officer is not a police officer and statements made before him under section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible in evidence and not hit section 25 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Naresh J. Sukhwani (Supra) it has been held that statement under section 108 Custom Act cannot be read against the co-accused. After hearing rival contentions this court finds that at present the prosecution is relying upon the statement of applicant recorded under section 108 of Customs Act which as per the judgement in the case of Kishan Ratan Singh(supra) Gopi Chand Soni(supra)and Sevantilal Karsondas Modi( supra) cannot be a sole basis of conviction in absence of corroborative evidence .At the stage of consideration of bail application of the accused this court finds that complaint against the applicant has already been filed, show cause notice for confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
