Petitioner Denied Anticipatory Bail in Customs Act Case

The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was accused of orchestrating a gold smuggling racket involving large sums of money and multiple individuals. The court found the allegations serious, with the market value of the gold exceeding Rs. 1 crore, making the offense non-bailable. Due to the need for custodial investigation and the gravity of the charges, the judge dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the recovery of a gold bar from a bus arriving from Dubai. The driver of the bus, Sahib Singh, admitted receiving the gold from a passenger to be delivered to Pardeep Saini, who, in turn, was supposed to hand it over to Narayan Sharma. The petitioner, fearing arrest, filed for anticipatory bail after the Additional Sessions Judge denied it. The Customs Department's reply stated that the petitioner failed to appear despite notices and that his office premises were searched, revealing involvement in a gold smuggling racket. The petitioner's son acted as a financer, and substantial amounts were exchanged for purchasing gold. The market value of the gold exceeded Rs. 1 crore, making the offense non-bailable under Section 104 of the Act.

The respondent argued that the petitioner, along with his son, was running a smuggling racket, and the market value of the gold involved exceeded Rs. 1 crore, warranting imprisonment up to 7 years under Section 135 of the Act. Non-bailable warrants had been issued against the petitioner's son. Citing a Supreme Court order, the respondent emphasized that socio-economic offenses like this required a different approach in bail considerations due to their deep-rooted conspiracies and societal impact.

After hearing both parties, the judge found no grounds to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The investigation revealed multiple instances of gold smuggling involving the accused, with the market value exceeding Rs. 1 crore. The petitioner was deemed the main orchestrator of the racket, providing funds for purchasing gold. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial investigation, the judge concluded that anticipatory bail was unwarranted. The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

---