Interim bail denied in customs smuggling probe where custodial remand, absconding risk, and witness influence concerns were found decisive.

Interim bail under the COVID-19 decongestion criteria was refused where the petitioners faced allegations of foreign-origin gold smuggling and an ongoing Customs Act investigation. The Court treated the matter as a serious economic offence, noted prima facie involvement and earlier customs proceedings suggesting habitual conduct, and accepted that custodial remand was necessary for effective investigation. It also relied on the risk of absconding and possible influence on witnesses. On that basis, the petitioners were held not entitled to interim bail under the High Powered Committee guidelines, and interference with the Magistrate's refusal was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim bail under the criteria framed by the High Powered Committee for COVID-19 decongestion, despite the allegation of smuggling of foreign-origin gold and the pending investigation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The relief sought was tested against the High Powered Committee criteria and the nature of the allegations. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 extends up to seven years, but the record showed prima facie involvement in a serious smuggling offence, with the investigation at an early stage. The material also indicated earlier customs proceedings, suggesting habitual conduct. The case was further treated as involving an economic offence, and the Court found that custodial remand was required for continued investigation. It also considered the risk of absconding and the possibility of witnesses being influenced.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held not entitled to interim bail under the High Powered Committee guidelines, and interference with the Magistrate's refusal was declined.

---