2019 (11) TMI 971 - HC - Customs

Directors of courier agencies granted bail in gold smuggling case due to limited role and lack of evidence

The court granted bail to the applicants, directors of courier agencies, in a case involving the alleged smuggling of foreign marked gold bars. The court ... Grant of Bail - offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - alleged smuggling of foreign marked gold bars to Mumbai from different cities of India, by domestic airlines - HELD THAT:- The statements of the applicants revealed that the applicants were aware of the contents in the parcel. Learned Counsel for the applicants vehemently denies having any knowledge, as there is no requirement to inspect the said parcels. Prima facie, it appears that the parcels were to be delivered to some local persons in Mumbai, through the applicants’ courier agencies. Whether or not the applicants had knowledge of the contents, is a matter which will be decided by the trial Court. Further detention of the applicants is not warranted - the applications are allowed and the applicants are enlarged on bail on specified terms & conditions. Issues: Bail application under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged smuggling of foreign marked gold bars.Analysis:1. Alleged Offence and Seizure: The case involves the alleged smuggling of foreign marked gold bars to Mumbai through domestic airlines, seized by the DRI authorities under the Customs Act. The applicants were consignees of the parcels containing the gold bars, seized by the authorities based on the belief that they were smuggled into the country.2. Applicants' Defense: The applicants, who are directors of courier agencies, claimed innocence stating their job was limited to courier-related activities within India. They argued they had no knowledge of the contents of the parcels, as their role was solely to pick up and deliver parcels without inspecting them. The defense emphasized that the applicants were in custody for almost 46 days and that they were merely involved in courier services, not smuggling activities.3. Contention and Decision: The DRI stated that the applicants were aware of the parcel contents based on their statements, while the defense vehemently denied any knowledge, highlighting the lack of requirement to inspect parcels. The court acknowledged that whether the applicants had knowledge of the contents would be determined during the trial. Considering the circumstances, the court found that further detention of the applicants was unwarranted and granted bail under specific terms and conditions.4. Bail Conditions: The court ordered the release of the applicants on cash bail and a personal recognizance bond, along with sureties. The applicants were required to report to the DRI office twice a week, cooperate with the trial proceedings, refrain from tampering with evidence or contacting involved parties, and not leave the country without the trial court's permission.5. Final Disposition: The court allowed the bail applications based on the outlined conditions, emphasizing that the observations made were prima facie and that the trial court would decide the case on its merits, following the law without being influenced by the current order. The order was to be acted upon by all concerned based on the authenticated copy provided.