High Court grants bail to applicants for Customs Act and IPC offenses based on delay in arrest, compliance, and bail criteria.

The High Court granted regular bail to the applicants in connection with offenses under the Customs Act and the Indian Penal Code. The court considered factors such as the delay in arrest by the Customs Department, allegations of past similar activities, compliance with procedural requirements, and criteria for granting bail. Relying on established principles, the court found it appropriate to release the applicants on bail, subject to specified conditions to ensure their appearance and cooperation in the ongoing investigation and trial.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail.
2. Delay in arrest by the Customs Department.
3. Allegations of past similar activities.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Customs Act.
5. Considerations for granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Regular Bail:
The applicants sought regular bail in connection with DRI File No.DRI/AZU/GI-02/ENQ-10/2015 for offences under Sections 132 and 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The application was initially dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and subsequently by the learned Sessions Judge. The applicants then approached the High Court for bail.

2. Delay in Arrest by the Customs Department:
The applicants were initially arrested by the DCB Crime on 24/02/2015 and were in judicial custody until 29/08/2015 when they were formally arrested by the respondent authority. The applicants argued that the Customs Authority deliberately prolonged the investigation and delayed their arrest by more than six months. The court noted that the Customs Department had sufficient time to investigate the case from 24/02/2015 to 27/10/2015, the date of filing the complaint before the learned Magistrate.

3. Allegations of Past Similar Activities:
The prosecution alleged that the applicants were involved in similar activities in the past, receiving several consignments and evading huge amounts of custom duties. The court, however, opined that the past activities under investigation should not be grounds to reject the bail application since the authority had sufficient time to complete the investigation.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Customs Act:
The applicants contended that no proceedings under Chapter XIV of the Customs Act for confiscating the goods had been initiated against them. The court noted that although a huge consignment of gold worth more than Rs. 16 Crores was seized, no procedure for confiscation had been initiated by the Customs Department. The court also considered that the applicants had not traveled from Dubai and were only caught along with the three accused who had passed through customs without paying duty.

5. Considerations for Granting Bail:
The court relied on the judgment in Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, which outlined factors for granting bail, including the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, apprehension of tampering with witnesses, and delay in concluding the trial. The court noted that the applicants had been in custody for more than 10 months and the investigation was almost over. Considering these factors, the court found it appropriate to grant bail.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the bail application, ordering the applicants to be released on regular bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, subject to conditions including not taking undue advantage of liberty, not acting in a manner injurious to the prosecution, surrendering their passports, not leaving the State of Gujarat and Delhi without permission, marking presence at the concerned police station, and furnishing their latest address of residence. The court also stated that the trial court should not be influenced by the observations made while granting bail.

---