TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Pre-arrest bail denied for receiving 36 kgs smuggled gold despite offense carrying under seven years punishment</h1> Bombay HC rejected pre-arrest bail application in gold smuggling case. Court found prima facie material showing applicant received 36 kgs of smuggled ... Seeking grant of pre-arrest bail - smuggling - Gold - Reason to believe - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, there is material to show that about 36 kgs. smuggled melted gold was delivered to the applicant. There are statements to show that though the consignee was Ganesh Jewellers, the gold was delivered to the applicant and the persons have specifically named the applicant as the person to whom the gold was delivered. In the face of the aforesaid material coupled with rather indisputabe delivery of the gold, it is rather difficult to accede to the submission that there is no credible material to form a reasonable belief about the alleged complicity of the applicant. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court has enunciated that in category ‘A’ containing the offences which entail punishment of seven years or less a better exercise of discretion on the part of the Court in favour of the accused is expected. However, in the face of the material on record where prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged smuggling of the gold is made out, the custodial interrogation of the applicant appears indispensable for an effective and complete investigation. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the material on record prima facie indicates that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to facilitate further investigation and unmask the characters, which are involved in the alleged syndicate, and unearth the facets of the alleged offence. The application stands rejected. Issues:- Application for pre-arrest bail in connection with summons issued under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.The judgment dealt with an application for pre-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case stemmed from the seizure of smuggled gold at Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, and subsequent investigations revealing the involvement of the applicant in receiving and handling smuggled gold. The applicant was alleged to have received significant quantities of smuggled gold for testing purity and subsequent transfer to jewelers, implicating him in the smuggling syndicate. The prosecution contended that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the gravity of the offense and the applicant's alleged lack of cooperation during the investigation.The applicant claimed to be involved in the business of testing the purity of gold and cooperated with the investigation after interim protection was granted. The defense argued that custodial interrogation was not warranted at that stage since the investigation was complete. The defense emphasized the need for credible material to justify custodial interrogation and cited legal precedents regarding the requirement of a valid 'reason to believe' for arrest under the Customs Act.The court considered the arguments presented by both sides, focusing on the evidence indicating the delivery of a substantial amount of smuggled gold to the applicant and statements from individuals involved in the transfer of the gold. The court noted that prima facie evidence suggested the applicant's complicity in the smuggling operation, making custodial interrogation necessary for a thorough investigation to uncover all aspects of the alleged offense and syndicate involved. Despite the defense's reliance on legal principles related to the punishment for the offense, the court found the quantity of smuggled gold and potential loss to public revenue to be significant factors in determining the need for custodial interrogation.Ultimately, the court rejected the application for pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation to further investigate the alleged smuggling syndicate and the applicant's involvement. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the entitlement to pre-arrest bail only, based on the prima facie evidence and considerations presented during the hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
