High Court grants bail in DRI case involving Gold seizure under Customs Act.

The High Court granted bail to the petitioners in the DRI case involving the seizure of Gold under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Each petitioner had Gold seized from them without proper documentation, valued at less than one crore rupees. Despite the total value exceeding one crore, the court found further custodial detention unnecessary for investigation purposes. Bail was set at &8377;50,000/- each with specific conditions, including cooperation in the investigation and surrendering passports.

---

---

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC for petitioners detained in connection with DRI Case No. 20/CL/IMP/GOLD/DRI/GZU/2019-20 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Accusation and Quantity of Gold Seized:
The petitioners, Mohammad Yaseen, Zaheer Ahmed, and Anzar Ahmed, filed bail applications under Section 439 Cr.PC. The petitioners were detained in connection with DRI Case No. 20/CL/IMP/GOLD/DRI/GZU/2019-20 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation against them was that a quantity of Gold was seized from them while being transported without any documents. The value of the Gold seized from each petitioner was less than one crore rupees. The prosecution's status report revealed that each petitioner was carrying Gold in their rectum. The petitioners had been in custody for 35 days.

2. Arguments of the Counsels:
During the hearing, Mr. J. Hatimuria, representing the petitioners, argued for bail. He highlighted that the value of the individual quantity of Gold seized from each petitioner was less than one crore rupees. On the other hand, Ms. Shome, representing the DRI, contended that although the value of individual quantities was below one crore, the total value of the Gold seized exceeded one crore rupees.

3. Judicial Decision and Conditions for Bail:
After considering the nature of the accusation, the quantity of Gold seized from each petitioner, and the duration of their detention, the court concluded that further custodial detention was unnecessary for the purpose of investigation. The court granted bail to the petitioners on a bond of &8377; 50,000/- each with two suitable sureties, at least one being a permanent resident of Assam. The bail was subject to specific conditions, including cooperation in the investigation, refraining from influencing witnesses, not committing similar offenses, obtaining permission to leave Assam, and surrendering any passports to the jurisdictional CJM.

4. Conclusion:
The bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC for the petitioners detained in connection with the DRI case involving the seizure of Gold without proper documentation was disposed of by the High Court. The decision emphasized the significance of the value of the Gold seized from each petitioner, the duration of their custody, and the necessity of further detention for investigative purposes. The court's ruling granted bail to the petitioners with prescribed conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation during the ongoing investigation.

---