Bail in Customs prosecution granted where alleged common design lacked trial-tested proof and no flight or interference risk was shown.

In a prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, the HC reiterated that alleged concerted action or common design cannot, at the bail stage, be finally inferred without trial-tested evidence. Custodial statements were treated as having evidentiary value to be assessed at trial, and an earlier bail order in a different matter was treated as fact-specific and not binding. As no criminal history was shown and no credible risk of absconding, witness intimidation, or tampering with evidence was established, bail was granted on conditions, with liberty to the trial court to proceed on any breach.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the alleged concerted conduct with co-accused, custodial statements, and reliance on an earlier bail order justified of bail.

Analysis: The allegation that the applicant acted in tandem with the other accused required evidence and could not be finally determined at the bail stage. Mere common origin or similarity of circumstances was insufficient, by itself, to treat the applicant as part of an association of persons or a body of individuals acting with a common design. The statements relied upon were recorded while the applicant was in custody and their evidentiary value was left to trial. The earlier bail order in another matter was treated as fact-specific and not binding as a precedent. The applicant had no criminal history, and no credible apprehension of flight risk, witness intimidation, or tampering with evidence was shown.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted on conditions, with liberty reserved to the trial court to act in accordance with law upon breach of those conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: At the bail stage, allegations of concerted action or common design, unsupported by trial-tested evidence, cannot by themselves justify denial of bail where the accused has no criminal history and no concrete risk of absconding or interference with the trial is shown.

---