Bail granted to accused in gold smuggling case under Section 135 Customs Act considering compoundable offense nature

Allahabad HC granted bail to accused charged under Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 for possession of smuggled gold bars. Court considered that trial had not commenced, accused's complicity undetermined, gold in department custody, offense compoundable under Section 137(3), no criminal antecedents, applicant's willingness to deposit customs duty, and prolonged custody since May 2024. Bail granted with conditions including personal bond, sureties, court appearances, passport surrender, and prohibition on tampering with evidence or similar offenses.

---

---

Issues:
1. Bail application filed under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegation of possession of smuggled golden bars.
3. Claim of false implication by the applicant.
4. Interpretation of provisions of the Customs Act.
5. Consideration of bail application based on facts and circumstances.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The bail application was filed by the applicant under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to a case involving the recovery of smuggled golden bars. The applicant was intercepted by D.R.I. Officers at a railway station, where the gold was found in his possession. The recovery was valued at Rs.1,47,44,174, and a complaint was filed, leading to the registration of Case No. 6 of 2024.

2. The applicant claimed innocence and argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was contended that the alleged confession was fabricated, and no smuggled gold was recovered from his possession. The defense highlighted flaws in the investigation and lack of evidence linking the gold to the applicant. The applicant also challenged the rejection of his bail application by the Sessions Court, citing the compoundable nature of the offense under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

3. The opposing party, represented by D.R.I., argued against the bail application, emphasizing the substantial quantity and value of the seized gold, which fell under the prohibited category. It was asserted that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the possession of illegal gold. D.R.I. maintained that the prosecution followed statutory provisions and that the severity of the offense warranted imprisonment for up to seven years under Section 135(i)(A) of the Customs Act.

4. The court considered the submissions from both sides and examined the record. It noted that the trial had not commenced, and the applicant's involvement was yet to be established. Given the compoundable nature of the offense, the lack of adverse impact on the trial, the applicant's clean criminal record, and willingness to pay customs duty, the court granted bail to the applicant under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act.

5. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, ordering the release of the applicant on certain conditions, including appearance before the trial court, refraining from criminal activities, surrendering the passport, and compliance with specified terms. Breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation upon prosecution's application before the court.

---