TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Accused gets bail in gold smuggling case under Customs Act sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i)(a)</h1> HC granted bail to accused charged under Customs Act sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), and 135(1)(i)(a) for smuggling gold bars. Court considered that trial ... Seeking grant of bail - offence u/s 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i)(a) of Customs Duty Act, 1962 - smuggling of golden bars - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the fact that in the matter trial has not started even yet and the complicity of the accused applicant is yet to be determined in trial, the gold seized is in the possession of the Department, the offence appears to be compoundable by virtue of Section 137(3) of the Customs Act and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial, no criminal antecedent to the credit of the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 25.6.2024, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, it is opined that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application of the accused-applicant is allowed. Issues:1. Bail application filed by the applicant involved in a case under the Customs Duty Act, 1962.2. Allegations of smuggling of gold bars and jewelry against the applicant.3. Defense's argument of false implication and faulty investigation.4. Prosecution's contention of the seriousness of the offense and the accused's involvement.5. Consideration of bail application by the court and decision to grant bail.Detailed Analysis:1. The bail application was filed by the applicant, who was involved in a case under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i)(a) of the Customs Duty Act, 1962. The applicant, Mohinder Singh, was intercepted by D.R.I. Officers at New Delhi Railway Station, where smuggled golden bars and jewelry were allegedly found in his possession.2. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was carrying illicit Foreign Origin Gold, valued at Rs.1,84,85,607, without proper documentation. The prosecution argued that the applicant was actively involved in transporting the gold and confessed to receiving it for delivery to another individual. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the offense and opposed the bail application.3. The defense, represented by the applicant's counsel, contended that the applicant was innocent and falsely implicated. They argued that the investigation was faulty, with no independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's claims. The defense highlighted discrepancies in the search procedures and lack of proper documentation. The defense also pointed out that another individual claimed legal ownership of the recovered gold.4. After considering the submissions from both parties, the court analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. The court noted that the trial had not commenced, and the applicant's involvement was yet to be determined. The court observed that the offense might be compoundable under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act. Considering the lack of adverse impact on the trial, absence of criminal antecedents, and the applicant's detention since the incident, the court granted bail to the applicant.5. The court allowed the bail application of the accused-applicant, Mohinder Singh, under specific conditions. The applicant was required to furnish a personal bond and sureties, appear before the trial court, refrain from committing similar offenses, not tamper with evidence, surrender passport, and comply with other conditions. Breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation upon prosecution's application before the court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
