Bail in customs smuggling cases may be refused where recovery and Section 108 statements show prima facie conscious possession.

Bail may be declined in a customs prosecution where recovery of foreign-origin gold bars from a concealed cavity, statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and surrounding circumstances together provide prima facie evidence of conscious possession and involvement in smuggling. The Court treated the alleged offence as a serious economic one, noted its impact on the national economy, and found sufficient material to link the applicant to the illegal transportation of smuggled gold. On that basis, the application for bail was refused at this stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a customs case involving recovery of foreign-origin gold bars and statements recorded during investigation.

Analysis: The application was considered in light of the recovery of 3 kg of gold bars from a specially built cavity in the vehicle, the admissions recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the surrounding circumstances indicating knowledge and involvement in transportation of smuggled gold. The Court also took into account the seriousness of the alleged offence, the prima facie material on record, and the impact of such smuggling activity on the economy of the nation. On that basis, the Court found sufficient material to conclude that the applicant was involved in the illegal transaction and that the case did not warrant the grant of bail at this stage.

Conclusion: Bail was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving grave economic offences under the customs , bail may be declined where prima facie evidence shows conscious possession and involvement in smuggling and the allegations disclose serious impact on the economy.

---