Customs Act bailability dispute: court maintained the offence was non-bailable but granted bail on deposit of part of the compounding fee.

The Delhi HC considered whether bail could be granted for an alleged Customs Act offence and whether its earlier view that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) was non-bailable should be departed from. It maintained that position, relying on its prior orders and noting that the Supreme Court order cited by the applicant was fact-specific and did not alter the existing view; the challenge to bailability was also still pending. Taking into account the compounding proceedings, the alleged duty evasion, custody, and likely trial duration, the Court granted bail subject to deposit of 50% of the compounding fee stated in the compounding order, together with the required bond and surety.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in respect of the alleged offence under the Customs Act and allied provisions, and whether the earlier view treating the offence as non-bailable should be departed from in light of the material placed before the Court.

Analysis: The Court declined to treat the offence as bailable. It relied on its earlier orders holding that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was non-bailable, noted that the Supreme Court order relied upon by the applicant was passed on the facts of that case and did not warrant a different view, and observed that the challenge regarding bailability was still pending. The Court also took into account the compounding proceedings, the nature of the alleged duty evasion, the applicant's custody, and the expected length of trial. On that basis, it directed release on bail only upon deposit of 50% of the compounding fee amount mentioned in the compounding order.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant subject to deposit of 50% of the compounding fee amount and execution of the requisite bond and surety.

---