Customs Act offenses deemed bailable under Sections 135(1)(A) & 135(1)(B)

The court found the offense under Sections 135(1)(A) and 135(1)(B) of the Customs Act to be bailable, as the value of gold recovered from each individual was considered separately, resulting in the offense being deemed bailable. The applicants were granted bail with conditions, including appearing before the trial court, refraining from tampering with evidence, and abstaining from criminal activities. The bail applications were allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released on bail.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest and procedure followed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
2. Whether the offense under Sections 135(1)(A) and 135(1)(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bailable.
3. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
4. Whether the recovered gold qualifies as "prohibited goods" under the Customs Act.
5. Consideration of the value of individually recovered gold versus combined recovered gold for determining bail.

Summary:

1. Legality of the arrest and procedure followed by DRI:
The applicants argued that they were forcibly apprehended from the train and falsely implicated in the case. They were not immediately arrested or searched at the spot, which they claimed was illegal. The DRI countered, stating that the applicants were apprehended based on specific intelligence and that the procedure followed was lawful.

2. Bailability of the offense under Sections 135(1)(A) and 135(1)(B) of the Customs Act:
The applicants contended that since the value of gold recovered from each individual was less than Rs. One Crore, the offense should be bailable. The DRI argued that the combined value of the gold recovered from all accused exceeded Rs. One Crore, making the offense non-bailable under Sections 104 and 135 of the Customs Act. The court concluded that the term "any person" in Section 135 refers to an individual, and thus, the value of individually recovered gold should be considered, making the offense bailable.

3. Admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The applicants claimed that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are not admissible, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The DRI contended that such statements are admissible as Customs Officers are not considered police officers. The court did not find this argument decisive in determining bail.

4. Whether the recovered gold qualifies as "prohibited goods":
The court examined whether the recovered gold was "prohibited goods" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs v. Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd., which distinguished between prohibited and restricted goods. The court concluded that the recovered gold was restricted, not prohibited, making the offense bailable.

5. Consideration of the value of individually recovered gold versus combined recovered gold:
The court held that for the purpose of Section 135 of the Customs Act, the value of gold recovered from each individual should be considered separately. Since the value of gold recovered from each applicant was less than Rs. One Crore, the offense was deemed bailable.

Conclusion:
The court determined that the offense committed by the applicants was bailable and granted bail, subject to certain conditions, including appearing before the trial court on fixed dates, not tampering with evidence, and not engaging in criminal activities. The bail applications were allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released on bail.

---