Customs bailability and compounding clarified: dual notification is required for non-bailable status, and writ relief can secure bail.

Section 104(6)(b) of the Customs Act applies only where prohibited goods are notified both under section 11 and under section 135(1)(i)(c); absent such dual notification, the offence remains bailable under section 104(7). Continued custody in a bailable offence was treated as a breach of personal liberty, so writ jurisdiction was available to secure release on bail despite any alternate remedy. The Court also held that compounding under section 137(3) may be considered at any stage and is not barred by the absence of a show cause notice or completed adjudication; the competent authority must decide the request in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged offence under the Customs Act was bailable under section 104(7) or fell within the non-bailable category under section 104(6)(b); (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable for enforcement of fundamental rights and grant of bail; (iii) whether an application for compounding under section 137(3) could be entertained before issuance of show cause notice and adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged offence under the Customs Act was bailable under section 104(7) or fell within the non-bailable category under section 104(6)(b).

Analysis: Section 104(6)(b) applies only where the offence concerns prohibited goods that are not merely notified under section 11, but are also notified under section 135(1)(i)(c). The record did not show any notification under section 135(1)(i)(c) treating the exotic animals as prohibited goods. Accepting the contrary construction would make the statutory words requiring dual notification meaningless. The Court therefore held that the case did not fall within section 104(6)(b).

Conclusion: The offence was bailable under section 104(7) of the Customs Act, 1962, and not non-bailable under section 104(6)(b).

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable for enforcement of fundamental rights and grant of bail.

Analysis: The petitioner remained in custody in a bailable offence. In such a case, continued judicial custody without offering bail amounted to a violation of personal liberty and constitutional safeguards. The Court held that writ jurisdiction was available to enforce those rights and that the absence of an alternate efficacious remedy did not bar relief.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail.

Issue (iii): Whether an application for compounding under section 137(3) could be entertained before issuance of show cause notice and adjudication.

Analysis: Section 137(3) permits compounding at any stage, including before prosecution, and the Court found no statutory bar requiring prior issuance of show cause notice or completion of adjudication. The compounding form did not create such a prohibition, and the authorities could not refuse to consider the application on the ground of prematurity. The merits of compounding remained for the competent authority.

Conclusion: The compounding application was maintainable and had to be decided in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was granted bail, the offence was treated as bailable, and the authorities were directed to proceed with adjudication and the compounding request expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence to be non-bailable under section 104(6)(b), the goods must be prohibited goods specifically notified both under section 11 and under section 135(1)(i)(c); absent such dual notification, the offence remains bailable under section 104(7), and constitutional writ relief may be invoked to prevent unlawful detention.

---