2024 (6) TMI 719 - HC - Customs

Bail denied in gold smuggling case due to insufficient evidence of legitimate employment and prima facie complicity

Harekrishna Parai Versus Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

The Allahabad HC rejected the bail application in a gold smuggling case. The applicant and co-accused were found in possession of substantial quantities ... Seeking grant of bail - Recovery of smuggled gold and cash - Applicant's employment and ownership of recovered items - Applicant is owner of recovered items or not - HELD THAT:- Apparently, the quantity of gold and gold ornaments and cash have been recovered and this fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the co-accused Lalmohan Panja were in possession of the items recovered. Even though it is submitted that the said items belonged to the employer of the applicant but the fact remains that insofar as the recovery is concerned that in itself is not disputed. It is prima-facie evident that huge quantity of cash, gold and gold ornaments were recovered. Whether the said gold or the gold ornaments have been made from the smuggled gold of foreign origin is a subject matter to be tested in trial. This Court finds that the instant bail application has been moved by the applicant, who claims himself to be an employee of the firm and is shown to be an ordinary resident of Mumbai as he usually works in Mumbai. However, no document has been brought on record to indicate that the applicant is an ordinary resident of Mumbai. No identity document, no bank statement, no residence proof, lease document/rent agreement has been filed which could indicate that the applicant is a resident in Mumbai. From the perusal of the said statement all that can be seen is that there are certain random entries which is corresponding to the name of the applicant and allegedly the family members of the applicant but insofar as the payment of salary is concerned, there is no statement indicating the consistency and regularity of time and amount which is attached to the payment of salary. In absence of any such clear material, it cannot prima-facie be ascertained at this stage that the applicant was the employee and was sent by his employers to sell the ornaments/gold and collect cash toward the sale proceeds. Prima-facie, complicity of the applicant is evident and at this stage and this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant Harekrishna Paria is rejected. Issues Involved:1. Bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.2. Recovery of smuggled gold and cash.3. Applicant's employment and ownership of recovered items.4. Admissibility of evidence and applicant's criminal history.5. Comparison with co-accused's bail status.Summary:1. Bail Application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.:The applicant sought bail in DRI Case No.6/2024 u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court considered the submissions from both parties, including the applicant's claim of being an employee and not the owner of the recovered items.2. Recovery of Smuggled Gold and Cash:The DRI intercepted the applicant and co-accused, recovering 558.900 grams of gold and Rs. 3,29,25,000/- in cash. Further searches led to additional recoveries of 7700 grams and 26500 grams of gold from different locations. The prosecution claimed the gold was of foreign origin and smuggled.3. Applicant's Employment and Ownership of Recovered Items:The applicant argued that he was an employee of M/s. Ram Laxman & Company and M/s. R.L. Jewels, and the recovered items belonged to these firms. The court noted the lack of clear documentation proving the applicant's regular employment and the absence of consistent salary records.4. Admissibility of Evidence and Applicant's Criminal History:The applicant contended that no independent evidence was collected apart from self-incriminating statements. The court found the material on record insufficient to establish the applicant's claim of being an employee authorized to collect sale proceeds.5. Comparison with Co-Accused's Bail Status:The court distinguished the applicant's case from that of co-accused Sumit Kumar Rastogi, who was granted bail. The applicant's possession of the locker key and the significant recoveries made his case different.Conclusion:The court found prima-facie complicity of the applicant and rejected the bail application. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial without unnecessary adjournments.