2024 (10) TMI 410 - HC - Customs

Bail granted in gold bullion smuggling case under Customs Act Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b)

Kaushal Yadav Versus The Union of India through the Deputy Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna

The Patna HC granted bail to a petitioner charged with gold bullion smuggling under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The court ... Seeking grant of bail - Smuggling of Gold bullion of foreign origin - offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Economic Offence, Patna in connection with Economic DRI, Patna Case No. 20(O) of 2024, arising out of Unit Case No. 29 of 2023-24, with further condition imposed - bail application allowed. Issues: Bail application in connection with Economic DRI case involving smuggling of foreign origin gold under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.The judgment delivered by the Honorable Court of Patna High Court pertains to a bail application filed by the petitioner in connection with Economic DRI, Patna Case No. 20(O) of 2024, involving offenses under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The prosecution's case alleges that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna, acting on confidential information about smuggling of foreign origin gold, intercepted the petitioner and two others at Patna Railway Junction. The petitioner admitted possession of smuggled gold bullion of foreign origin, implicating his staff as accomplices. The seized gold bullions were examined by a Government Registered Valuer, confirming their purity and value. The petitioner and co-accused admitted involvement in smuggling activities. The petitioner, through his counsel, claimed innocence, stating he purchased the gold from a third party and had no knowledge of its illegal nature. The defense argued that the seizure list was prepared by an incompetent officer, challenging its evidentiary value. Additionally, it was contended that import of gold is restricted, not prohibited, and the petitioner had a clean antecedent. The defense highlighted that the co-accused had already been granted bail. The prosecution opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner's admission of possession and involvement in smuggling activities. Despite the opposition, considering the circumstances, nature of allegations, and period of custody, the Court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a bail bond and sureties, with the condition of mandatory court appearance. The application for bail was allowed by the Court.