2024 (3) TMI 83 - Other - Customs

Court Dismisses Bid to Revoke Bail for Accused; No Justification Found for Cancellation Under Customs Act.

Senior Intelligence Officer, Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch Versus Shri Jaspal Singh Dhodi

The application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused under the Customs Act, 1962, was rejected by the court. The prosecution argued that the ... Application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant / accused - mis-declaration of manufacturing year of the crane imported - arrested u/s 104(1) for the offence committed u/s 132 and 135(1)(a) - HELD THAT:- From the facts on record it appears that the accused is attending the investigation and has co-operated the same. No case is made out to show that custodial interrogation by cancelling bail is just and necessary. The ld Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that the main allegation is regarding mis-declaration of the order of manufacturing of the crane. It is specifically observed that this issue is related to the documents filed with RTO. It is further observed that the accused is ready to co-operate with the investigation and submit the documents required for the investigation. The documents are already submitted by the accused. In these circumstances no case is made out to cancel the bail granted to the accused. Considering the nature of the offence and also facts on record, there is no merit in the contention that the accused is not entitled for the bail. Hence, the same are devoid of merit. In the result, I pass the following order : Misc. Application is rejected and disposed of accordingly. Issues involved: Application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused under the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of manufacturing year of imported crane.Summary:The prosecution filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused by the ld Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The accused was arrested under the Customs Act for alleged offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) related to mis-declaration of the crane's manufacturing year. The applicant contended that the bail order was bad in law, failed to consider the seriousness of the offences, and allowed the accused to potentially influence witnesses. The applicant argued that the accused did not cooperate with the investigation initially but later provided the required documents. After considering the submissions and facts, the court found that the accused had cooperated with the investigation, submitted the necessary documents, and there was no breach of bail conditions. The court concluded that there was no justification to cancel the bail granted to the accused based on the nature of the offence and the facts on record. Therefore, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected and disposed of accordingly.