Customs bail classification under CrPC Table II excludes offences punishable up to three years from the bailable category

An offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, with imprisonment extending up to three years or fine or both, was stated not to fall within the bailable third entry of Table II of the First Schedule to the CrPC; the wording was read as excluding only punishments for less than three years or fine only. Interim bail granted at an earlier stage was not treated as regular bail because it was not granted on merits and was later followed by an order directing judicial custody. On the merits of bail, the text records that allegations of large-scale customs duty evasion justified refusal of regular bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, carrying imprisonment up to three years or fine or both, falls within the bailable third entry of Table II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the interim bail granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could be treated as regular bail; (iii) Whether the petitioners made out a case for grant of regular bail on merits.

Issue (i): Whether an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, carrying imprisonment up to three years or fine or both, falls within the bailable third entry of Table II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The classification in Table II turns on the words used in the entry relating to punishment. Reading the expression in context, the second entry covers offences punishable with imprisonment for three years upwards but not more than seven years, while the third entry applies only where the punishment is for less than three years or fine only. The Court found that the phraseology was not to be read as excluding offences where imprisonment may extend up to three years. Reliance on the Supreme Court decision dealing with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was held to be inapposite for determining this classification.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held not to fall in the bailable third entry; the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the interim bail granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could be treated as regular bail.

Analysis: The petitioners had initially been enlarged only on interim bail after appearance, and the interim protection continued till 12 October 2001. The bail was not granted on merits. The later order dated 12 October 2001 declined bail and directed judicial custody. On these facts, the earlier custody arrangement could not be characterised as regular bail.

Conclusion: The interim bail was not treated as regular bail; the contention was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners made out a case for grant of regular bail on merits.

Analysis: The complaint alleged involvement in evasion of customs duty worth crores of rupees. In view of the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the case, the Court found no basis to exercise bail jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

Conclusion: Regular bail was refused on merits.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications were rejected after the Court answered the classification and bail-contention issues against the petitioners and found no ground to grant regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Table II of the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable with imprisonment extending up to three years does not fall in the bailable category merely because the maximum term is three years or less; bail entitlement must also be tested on the merits and circumstances of the case.

---