Court Grants Bail to Appellants in Gold Smuggling Case

The court granted bail to the appellants, highlighting that mere gold smuggling without posing a threat to India's economic security or monetary stability does not constitute a terrorist act under the UAP Act. The appeals were resolved with bail conditions, including a bond amount, surrendering passports, reporting to the police, and maintaining active mobile phone locations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of denial of bail to appellants under UAP Act and IPC.
2. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act concerning smuggling of gold.
4. Applicability of the Customs Act as a scheduled offense under the UAP Act.
5. Conditions for granting bail to the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Denial of Bail to Appellants:
The appellants were aggrieved by the orders dated 10th May 2021 and 27th November 2021, which declined to grant bail. The appellants were intercepted with 504 gold bars weighing 83.621 kilograms, allegedly smuggled, and were charged under Sections 16/18/20 of the UAP Act and Sections 120B/204/409/471 IPC. Despite being granted bail in the customs case, they continued to be in custody due to the RC registered by NIA.

2. Admissibility of Statements Recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The prosecution's main evidence was the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The appellants contended these statements were inadmissible in a trial under the UAP Act. The Additional Solicitor General argued that such statements are admissible, citing the Supreme Court's decision in K.I. Pavunny vs. Assistant Collector, which held that statements under Section 108 could be used in trials under other statutes.

3. Interpretation of Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act:
The appellants argued that smuggling of gold does not fall under "any other material" in Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act. They cited judgments from the Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts, which held that gold smuggling is not included in the term "other material" under this section. The courts emphasized that the Customs Act is not a scheduled offense under the UAP Act and that smuggling of gold, per se, does not threaten economic security or monetary stability of India.

4. Applicability of the Customs Act as a Scheduled Offense under the UAP Act:
The appellants argued that the Customs Act is not included in the schedule of the UAP Act, and thus, offenses under the Customs Act cannot be prosecuted under the UAP Act. The court noted that the amendment to Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UAP Act did not explicitly include gold smuggling, despite recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) regarding the economic impact of gold smuggling.

5. Conditions for Granting Bail to the Appellants:
Considering the appellants had been in custody for over 20 months and the trial was likely to take more time, the court deemed it fit to grant bail. The conditions for bail included furnishing a personal and surety bond of Rs. 1 lakh, surrendering passports, not leaving the country without permission, reporting to the jurisdictional police station monthly, submitting residential addresses and mobile phone details, and keeping mobile phones in active mode with shared live locations for six months.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that mere smuggling of gold without any connection to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be deemed a terrorist act under the UAP Act. The appeals were disposed of with specific conditions for bail.

---