Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a customs smuggling case where the prosecution relied on statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether retraction of those statements justified release on bail.
Analysis: The statements of the petitioner and the co-accused were detailed and disclosed the manner of contact, the role of the diplomatic consignee, the earlier consignment, the commission received, and the arrangement for the present shipment. The Court treated these statements as prima facie voluntary for the purpose of bail, and also noted corroboration from the concealment and seizure of foreign-marked gold biscuits from the consignment. The alleged retraction was not accepted as sufficient at this stage to displace the evidentiary value of the statements, particularly where the allegations involved repeated smuggling activity and a large quantity of gold.
Conclusion: Bail was refused.
Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected on merits of the bail request, with the Court declining to interfere in view of the gravity of the economic offence and the prima facie material against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: In a bail matter arising from a serious economic offence, detailed statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, when prima facie corroborated by surrounding circumstances, may justify refusal of bail notwithstanding subsequent retraction at the initial stage.