9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the recovered gold individually is below 1 Crore whereas collectively, it is more than 1 crore, but while deciding the prayer for bail, this Court is not inclined to make any comment on the nature of offence whether it is bailable or non-bailable. No doubt, in the case of Mohd. Tufial [2023 (3) TMI 1293 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], this Court has observed that the recovery effected from each accused is to be considered to determine the nature of the offence, but this Court is not inclined to comment upon the nature of the alleged offence, if, it would fall under section 104(6) or 104(7) Customs Act, 1962 as the charges against the accused have also not been framed so far. Otherwise also, this issue can be effectively decided by the trial court on the strength of the evidence of the parties. The admissibility of the statements of the accused recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 would also be tested during trial. However, considering the stand of the accused, who claim that the recovered material was acquired by them in legitimate manner, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the applicants may not be necessary for any useful purpose. Concededly the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Sharma @ Bablu and Sudhir Kumar @ Sunil. On questioning, they denied that they are carrying any smuggled foreign origin gold, therefore, notice under section 102 Customs Act, 1962 was served and they both were apprised about their legal rights for searching in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. At that stage, they both disclosed that they are carrying foreign origin smuggled gold concealed in their respective right shoe. From Anil Kumar Sharma, two pieces (one small and another large) of yellow metal were found and they weighed 172 gms and 828 gms respectively. The smaller piece appeared to be the part of the larger piece. Besides, the recovery of gold, one mobile phone was also recovered from him. Similarly, on searching Sudhir Kumar, one yellow metal bar weighing 1000 gms was recovered, alongwith the driving license, Delhi Metro Card and mobile phone. They further disclosed that they worked at a jewellery shop namely M/s AK Jewellers and Ankit Jindal, proprietor is their employer. The recovered material was kept in a transparent bag and the purity of the gold was also ascertained as 995. The consolidated value of all the three pieces was assessed at Rs.1,49,48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accused Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Tufial Vs. Union of India And Another passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57731 of 2022, and argued that in the said case, the recovery of gold effected from two persons was collectively valued more than Rs.1 Crore, but this Court upon analyzing the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 held that the individual recovery from each accused is to be seen, and accordingly extended the concession of bail to the accused persons on the ground that the alleged offences are bailable being covered by Section 104(7) Customs Act, 1962. 6. Learned counsel for the Ankit Jindal has argued that as per prosecution itself, the recovery of the gold bar is effected from the other accused persons and the applicant- Ankit Jindal has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by them. He submits that the applicant is in custody since his arrest on 21.11.2024 and the charges against the accused are yet to be proved, therefore, the further detention of the accused- applicant is not justified. Learned counsel has referred to the complaint dated 30.01.2025 filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Ankit Jindal- applicant has argued that the complaint dated 30.01.2025 is confined only to the alleged recovery of 2000 gms of gold and the recovery effected from the house of Ankit Jindal being in the nature of ornaments is not the subject matter or case property for his prosecution for violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. 10. At this juncture, Mr. Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the UOI has fairly stated that the prosecution case is only related to the recovery of the 2000 gms of gold effected on 12.7.2024. 11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the officials of the DRI had intercepted a roadways bus wherein accused persons Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar were travelling and from them 1 kg gold each was recovered. Of course, the value of the recovered gold individually is below 1 Crore whereas collectively, it is more than 1 crore, but while deciding the prayer for bail, this Court is not inclined to make any comment on the nature of offence whether it is bailable or non-bailable. No doubt, in the case of Mohd. Tufial (supra), this Court has observed that the recovery effected fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
