Customs offence bail refused where recovery evidence, missing documents, and statutory non-bailable treatment supported the prosecution case.

In a customs prosecution involving recovery of gold, the bail plea was rejected because the court treated the alleged offence as non-bailable under the statutory scheme and relied on the material collected by customs authorities. The absence of supporting documents, the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the cited precedent were considered sufficient to support the prosecution case at the bail stage. On the facts and overall circumstances, no ground was made out to enlarge the applicant on bail, and custody was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a prosecution for alleged customs offences and whether the offence was non-bailable in view of the quantity and value of the recovered gold.

Analysis: The bail plea was considered in the context of the material collected by the customs authorities, including the recovery of gold, the absence of supporting documents, and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court accepted the prosecution's reliance on the statutory scheme under Section 104(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the cited precedent to hold that the alleged offence, in the circumstances of the case, was not bailable. On the facts and overall circumstances, the applicant had not made out a case for bail.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The accused remained in custody as the Court found no sufficient ground to enlarge him on bail in the customs prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: In a customs prosecution involving recoveries of substantial value, a bail claim may be refused where the statutory non-bailable regime applies and the available material supports the prosecution case.

---