Court grants bail in customs duty evasion case despite opposition, imposes conditions for release

The court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving alleged fraudulent diversion of imported goods to evade customs duty. Despite opposition from the Custom Department, citing the applicant's involvement in the offense, the court considered the applicant's role similar to the co-accused, who had already been granted bail. Emphasizing that the decision did not imply a stance on the case's merits, the court ordered the applicant's release on bail under specified conditions, including cooperation in the trial and refraining from criminal activities, with the warning of bail cancellation for any breach.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Bail application under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 for alleged fraudulent diversion of imported goods to evade customs duty.

The bail application was filed by the applicant seeking release during the trial in a case involving the importation of betel nut splits. The applicant, a travel agent, claimed innocence stating he had no involvement in the alleged offense. It was argued that the main culprit, Mohd. Jahas, who imported the goods, had already been granted bail. The applicant's role was deemed indistinguishable from the co-accused, hence he sought bail on the grounds of parity. The court considered the facts, the nature of the offense, and the similarity to the co-accused's case, ultimately granting bail to the applicant.

The Custom Department vehemently opposed the bail application, alleging the applicant's involvement in the fraudulent diversion of imported goods to evade customs duty. It was claimed that the applicant, along with the main accused, planned the diversion of goods and took delivery of the diverted goods. The department argued that the applicant was a beneficial owner of the goods and involved in criminal conspiracy, thus should not be granted bail. However, the defense contended that all allegations were against the main accused, Mohd. Jahas, who had already been granted bail.

The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, the nature of the offense, and the involvement of the applicant compared to the co-accused, granted bail to the applicant. The court emphasized that the decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but found that the applicant had made a case for bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions, including not tampering with evidence, cooperating in the trial, and refraining from criminal activities, with the provision that any breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation.

---