Bail granted in gold smuggling case under Customs Act. Considered value, custody period. Conditions imposed.

The court granted bail to two petitioners in a Customs Act case involving gold smuggling. Each petitioner was found carrying gold bars, but the value seized from each was below the bailable limit. The court considered the value of the seized gold, the period of custody, and granted bail with conditions including a bail bond and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction, interfering with the investigation, or influencing witnesses. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was empowered to impose additional conditions if needed.

---

---

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.PC for two petitioners in connection with a Customs Act case involving gold smuggling.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC by the petitioners, seeking bail in connection with a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were intercepted at railway stations with gold bars concealed in their rectum, allegedly for a single syndicate. Each petitioner was found carrying six gold bars, totaling 1991.810 grams, valued at &8377; 1,01,28,354. The petitioners argued that since the value of the gold seized from each of them was below &8377; 1 crore, the offense should be considered bailable under Section 135(1)(i)(A) of the Customs Act. The Standing Counsel for DRI contended that the petitioners were part of an organized operation and the value of the seized gold bars should be considered together. The petitioners also cited a previous bail order for similarly situated accused persons and highlighted the duration of their custody compared to the granted bail in other cases.

The court considered the provisions of the Customs Act, the value of the seized gold bars from each petitioner, and the period of detention in custody. After deliberation, the court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions. The petitioners were directed to furnish a bail bond of &8377; 25,000 each with two suitable sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Additional conditions included restrictions on leaving the territorial jurisdiction without permission, not interfering with the investigation or evidence, and refraining from influencing witnesses. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was empowered to impose further conditions as deemed necessary. The judgment concluded by ordering the return of the case diary and disposing of the petition accordingly.

---