Bailability under customs law: offence under Section 135(1)(ii) treated as bailable, securing bail before the Magistrate.

Offences under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as bailable on the facts discussed, because Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply to the alleged smuggling of bonded stores. Once the offence was bailable, Section 50(2) read with Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 required release on bail, and the Magistrate had no discretion to refuse bail. The accused was therefore entitled to seek bail before the competent Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable and whether the accused is entitled to be released on bail.

Analysis: The application arose from an arrest for alleged smuggling of bonded stores and the question whether the offence attracted the non-bailable regime under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The settled view of the Court was that Section 123 was not applicable on the facts and that the offence fell under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, which had consistently been treated as bailable. Once the offence is bailable, Section 50(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires release on bail, and a Magistrate cannot refuse bail in such cases.

Conclusion: The offence was held to be bailable and the accused was held entitled to bail; the applicant was permitted to move the Magistrate for grant of bail.

Final Conclusion: The ruling affirmed the bailability of offences under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and recognized the accused's right to bail through the competent Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable, the accused is entitled to bail and the Magistrate cannot decline it under the governing provisions of criminal procedure.

---