2024 (1) TMI 903 - HC - Customs

Anticipatory bail granted in gold smuggling case following precedent that gold import under 1 Crore is bailable offence

Mohammad Imran Versus Union Of India Thru. Suprinten. Custom Chaudhary Charan Singh Internat.

HC granted anticipatory bail to applicant in gold smuggling case. Court followed coordinate bench precedent in Mohd. Tufail case holding that gold import ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - bailable offence or not - Smuggling - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT:- The judgement of the coordinate Bench in Mohd. Tufail, Mohammad Alam [2023 (3) TMI 1293 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] appears to be more reasoned wherein it is held that the import of gold into the territory of India is not prohibited goods and also that if the value of the gold being imported illegally into India is less than 1 Crore, the same would be a bailable offence. Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned given therein, there are no reason to differ from the view adopted by the coordinate Bench in Mohd. Tufail, Mohammad Alam. Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned herein before, in the considered opinion of this Court, the facility of bail may be safely extended to the applicant. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. Issues Involved:1. False Implication and Recovery of Gold Bars2. Applicant's Role and Conscious Possession3. Value of Seized Gold Bars and Bailability4. Applicant's Personal Circumstances and Criminal History5. Legal Precedents and Interpretation of Customs ActSummary:1. False Implication and Recovery of Gold Bars:The applicant, Mohammad Imran, alleged that he was falsely implicated and that nothing was recovered from his possession as claimed by the prosecution. He stated that he was given a suitcase by a person named Rahul @ Bengali in Dubai, who threatened him and instructed him to deliver it to another individual in India.2. Applicant's Role and Conscious Possession:The applicant argued that he was merely a carrier and not in conscious possession of the gold bars. However, the counsel for the Union of India contended that the applicant was found in conscious possession of 14 gold biscuits weighing about 1632 grams and admitted to knowing the illegality of transporting these gold bars within India.3. Value of Seized Gold Bars and Bailability:The applicant's counsel highlighted that the value of the seized gold bars was below Rs. 1 Crore, making the offense bailable under sub-section 7 of Section 104 of the Customs Act. The court agreed, noting that the offense was punishable up to 3 years imprisonment and thus bailable.4. Applicant's Personal Circumstances and Criminal History:It was submitted that the applicant was the sole breadwinner of his family, had no criminal history, and his prolonged confinement would adversely affect his family. The court considered these personal circumstances in its decision.5. Legal Precedents and Interpretation of Customs Act:The court examined various legal precedents, including judgments from the High Court of Delhi and coordinate Benches of the Allahabad High Court. It found the judgment in Mohd. Tufail vs. Union of India to be more reasoned, which held that the import of gold into India is not prohibited and if the value is less than 1 Crore, the offense is bailable.Conclusion:The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail, setting conditions for his release, including furnishing a personal bond, not tampering with evidence, cooperating in the trial, and depositing his passport with the trial court. The bail application was allowed, with the court emphasizing that any breach of conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.