Customs Act: Importing Gold Over Rupees 1 Crore Results in Non-Bailable Offence

The Court determined that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is non-bailable if the market value of the goods exceeds Rupees One Crore. The petitioners, a husband and wife, collectively imported gold worth over Rupees One Crore, leading to a non-bailable offence. The second petitioner, a mother of four, was granted bail due to her circumstances and lack of necessity for further detention, while the first petitioner was denied bail for non-cooperation, which could affect the investigation. The first petitioner's bail application was dismissed, and the second petitioner was granted bail under specific conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable.
2. Consideration of bail for the petitioners based on their individual circumstances and the nature of the offence.

Summary:

1. Determination of whether the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable:

The petitioners, husband and wife, were indicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, for importing gold exceeding Rupees One Crore. They sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Customs Department argued that offences under Section 135 are non-bailable if the market price of the illegally imported goods exceeds Rupees One Crore. The petitioners collectively imported gold worth more than Rupees One Crore, making the offence non-bailable. The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Sections 104(6) and 135 of the Customs Act, which clarify that if the market price of the goods exceeds Rupees One Crore, the offence is non-bailable.

The Court noted that innovative methods are used by smugglers to evade the law, including using family members as carriers. It was emphasized that the cumulative value of the goods carried by individuals with a common intention can be considered collectively. The Court referred to the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines 'person' to include a body of individuals, supporting a broader interpretation of the term 'any person' under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

2. Consideration of bail for the petitioners based on their individual circumstances and the nature of the offence:

The petitioners were arrested on 18.05.2023 and had been in custody since then. The second petitioner, a lady and mother of four young children, claimed she was induced by her husband and his cousin to act as a carrier for remuneration. Considering her circumstances and the period of detention, the Court found that further detention of the second petitioner was not essential for an effective investigation and granted her bail with conditions.

However, the first petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation, and his release could prejudice the ongoing investigation. Therefore, the Court denied bail to the first petitioner.

Conclusion:

The bail application of the first petitioner was dismissed, while the second petitioner was granted bail under specific conditions, including executing a bond, cooperating with the investigation, not intimidating witnesses, not committing similar offences, and not leaving Kerala without permission.

---