Accused granted bail in gold smuggling case under Section 135 Customs Act considering trial delays and compoundable offense

Allahabad HC granted bail to accused in gold smuggling case under Section 135 Customs Act, 1962. Court considered that trial had not commenced, accused's complicity undetermined, gold in department custody, offense compoundable under Section 137(3), no criminal antecedents, accused's willingness to deposit customs duty, and prolonged custody since January 2024. Bail granted with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues:
Bail application under Section 135 of Customs Duty Act, 1962 for accused involved in smuggling case.

Analysis:
The bail application was filed by the accused, who was involved in a case under Section 135 of the Customs Duty Act, 1962, for smuggling golden bars. The prosecution alleged that the accused and a co-accused were intercepted at a railway station with smuggled gold bars. The recovered gold was valued at over Rs. 1.6 crores for the accused and over Rs. 41 lakhs for the co-accused. The accused denied involvement, claiming false implication and that the recovered gold was not his. The defense argued that the investigation was faulty, lacking evidence linking the gold to the accused. The defense also contended that the accused's alleged confession was false and that the offense was compoundable as the value of the gold was below Rs. 2 crores.

The defense further argued that the accused was ready to pay customs duty, as per a compounding notice issued by the Additional Commissioner. It was highlighted that a co-accused had been granted bail, indicating inconsistency in decisions. Reference was made to a government circular stating that no prosecution should be launched for certain offenses under the Customs Act. The defense emphasized that the accused had been in jail since the incident and was willing to cooperate in the trial.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail application, stating that the accused possessed a significant amount of illegal gold falling under the prohibited category. The prosecution argued that the accused was intercepted based on credible information and was acting as a carrier of smuggled gold. It was asserted that the offense was punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment under Section 135(i)(A) of the Customs Act. The prosecution contended that the purpose of the Customs Act was not only to recover duty but also to punish offenders.

After considering the submissions, the court granted bail to the accused. The court noted that the trial had not commenced, the gold was in the possession of the department, and the offense appeared to be compoundable. The court found no evidence that the accused would interfere with the trial, had no criminal antecedents, and was willing to pay customs duty. The court emphasized that the decision did not comment on the case's merits but concluded that the accused had made a case for bail. The court imposed conditions for the accused's release on bail, including appearing before the trial court, refraining from criminal activities, surrendering the passport, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation.

---