2020 (7) TMI 147 - HC - Customs

Denial of Bail for Customs Act Offences

The Court denied bail to the petitioners arrested for alleged offences under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court expressed concerns ... Seizure - Smuggling of Gold - offences under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the petitioners have committed very serious offence and the offences registered against the petitioners are clearly attracted. Moreover, they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further, there is apprehension that the accused persons would have continued in indulging in mobilising gold in huge quantity. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, and these criminal original petitions are dismissed. Issues:1. Bail application by petitioners arrested for alleged offences under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Legality of arrest and remand based on the alleged seizure of gold.3. Allegations of pooling gold from multiple passengers to boost value for arrest.4. Prosecution's argument of involvement in a smuggling conspiracy.5. Opposition to bail based on seriousness of offences and likelihood of continued criminal activities.Analysis:Issue 1: Bail application by petitionersThe petitioners sought bail after being arrested and remanded to judicial custody for alleged offences under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that they were arrested along with other passengers without knowledge of their involvement, and the remand report contained false particulars. They contended that pooling gold from multiple passengers to boost the value for arrest was impermissible under the law.Issue 2: Legality of arrest and remandThe prosecution issued an arrest memo under section 50 of Cr. P.C and Article 22 (1) of the Constitution, alleging the petitioners' involvement in offences under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were arrested in connection with the alleged seizure of gold and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners argued that the arrest was based on extraneous reasons and the remand report contained inaccuracies justifying their detention.Issue 3: Allegations of pooling goldThe petitioners contended that the respondent pooled gold from various passengers to inflate the value for arrest under non-bailable sections. They argued that each passenger should declare goods separately, and they should not be held responsible for other passengers' undeclared goods. The petitioners emphasized that the alleged seizure was significantly less than the threshold for non-bailable offences.Issue 4: Prosecution's smuggling conspiracy argumentThe Special Public Prosecutor detailed a smuggling conspiracy involving the petitioners and other accused persons. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were part of a scheme to smuggle gold from abroad through Chennai Airport by concealing it in their rectum. The accused were accused of collaborating with operators and customs officials to facilitate the smuggling operation. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the risk of continued criminal activities.Issue 5: Opposition to bailThe Court noted the seriousness of the offences and the petitioners' arrest and remand to judicial custody. It expressed concerns about the likelihood of the accused continuing to engage in large-scale gold smuggling. Consequently, the Court declined to grant bail to the petitioners, and their criminal original petitions were dismissed.