Bail in alleged excise duty evasion refused after court treated the case as a serious economic offence.

Bail under Section 439 CrPC was considered in a prosecution alleging evasion of central excise duty from an unregistered packing unit. The alleged duty liability was assessed under Rule 18(2) of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010 on the basis of machines found in the premises and the retail sale price of the pouches. Treating the matter as a serious economic offence with substantial impact on the public exchequer, the Court found no ground to exercise discretion in favour of release and refused bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be granted in a prosecution for alleged evasion of central excise duty involving unregistered packing machines and a large presumptive duty liability.

Analysis: The alleged offence arose from search and seizure revealing packing machines, raw material and finished goods in an unregistered unit. The duty liability was determined under Rule 18(2) of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity, Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 on the basis of the machines found available and the retail sale price of the pouches. The Court treated the alleged evasion as a serious economic offence, noting the substantial amount involved and the potential impact on the public exchequer. In that backdrop, and while confining itself to the bail , the Court found no justification to exercise discretion in favour of release.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the petition was dismissed.

---