Bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - evasion of customs duty - value threshold for non-bailable offence where market price of goods exceeds one crore - prima facie value determination for bail - conditions to prevent tampering with prosecution evidenceBail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - prima facie value determination for bail - evasion of customs duty - value threshold for non-bailable offence where market price of goods exceeds one crore - Applicant entitled to bail - HELD THAT: - The applicant was intercepted with a wrist watch alleged to have been imported by evasion of customs duty and offences were registered under the Customs Act. The prosecution asserted a market value in excess of one crore, which would attract the higher, non-bailable punishment under the Act. However, the record produced by the applicant (receipt Ex.A) prima facie shows a value in US$ 13,895 (below the one crore threshold) and the AIU did not place on record documentary evidence to establish the higher value. Having regard to the prima facie material on record, the Court treated the offence as one punishable by a bailable provision and observed that continued incarceration was not necessary pending investigation. The Court also accepted that apprehensions of tampering could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions rather than denial of bail. [Paras 8, 9, 10]Bail allowedConditions to prevent tampering with prosecution evidence - bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Terms and conditions to be imposed on grant of bail - HELD THAT: - To obviate the prosecution's apprehension of tampering, the Court imposed specific conditions as part of the bail order: execution of personal bond with solvent sureties (or provisional cash bail), regular attendance at the AIU office for the duration of investigation, availability for interrogation on notice, prohibition on inducing or threatening witnesses, surrender of passport and prohibition on leaving India without prior permission of the trial court. The Court directed that failure to comply with any condition would result in automatic cancellation of bail.Bail granted subject to specified restrictive conditionsFinal Conclusion: Bail application allowed: applicant released on bail subject to execution of personal bond with sureties (or provisional cash bail for one month), periodic attendance and availability for interrogation, surrender of passport, prohibition on leaving India without prior permission and other restrictive conditions; non-compliance to result in cancellation of bail.

Bail - custodial interrogation no longer required - retracted disclosure statement - false implication - personal bond with surety - aiding and abetting smugglingBail - custodial interrogation no longer required - retracted disclosure statement - false implication - personal bond with surety - Admission of the accused Sunil Kumar to bail and whether custodial interrogation is required. - HELD THAT: - Accused, a Customs Inspector, was alleged to have aided and abetted smuggling by others; the prosecution case rests primarily on the disclosure statement of a co-accused which was later retracted and the accused contends he was falsely implicated in revenge for a prior apprehension. The Court noted that the accused has been in judicial custody since 04.02.2019 and that custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. Having considered the submissions, the nature of the allegations, the retraction of the disclosure relied upon by prosecution, and the period of custody, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of bail subject to conditions. The order records that the accused's custodial interrogation is not required and that overall facts and circumstances justify release on bail with appropriate surety and bond conditions.Accused Sunil Kumar is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. CMM/Link MM/Duty MM; custodial interrogation is not required.Final Conclusion: Bail granted to the accused Sunil Kumar on specified bond and surety conditions; custodial interrogation dispensed with and the accused released on the ordered bail terms.

Power under section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon or direct production of documents - preservation and production of call data records and tower location - evidentiary value of statement under section 108 of the Customs Act - custodial detention and requirement of production before court within 24 hours - right of accused to produce evidence in defencePower under section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon or direct production of documents - preservation and production of call data records and tower location - right of accused to produce evidence in defence - Direction to telecom operators to preserve and produce CDRs and tower location of the accused and specified DRI officers under section 91 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT: - The accused sought preservation and production of call detail records and tower location data to substantiate his claim of illegal custody and alleged failure by DRI officials to produce him before the Court within the stipulated period. The Court observed that CDRs and tower location data are relevant and potentially dispositive evidence for the accused's defence and that such material may be lost unless preserved. Applying the statutory power to require production of documents for purposes of inquiry or trial, the Court found no prejudice to the department in directing preservation and production. Having considered the submissions and authorities relied upon, the Court exercised its discretion under section 91 Cr.P.C. to issue notice to the concerned mobile operators and directed them to preserve and file the specified CDRs and tower location information within one month.Application under section 91 Cr.P.C. allowed; concerned mobile operators directed to preserve and file the CDRs and tower location of the accused and the named DRI officers within one month.Final Conclusion: The Court allowed the accused's application under section 91 Cr.P.C., directing the relevant telecom operators to preserve and produce the call detail records and tower location data of the accused and specified DRI officials within one month to enable the accused to adduce relevant defence evidence.