Customs bail relief granted where foreign origin of seized gold was not established at the bail stage.

In a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, the HC granted regular bail where the applicant produced business records, GST and income-tax returns, stock registers and registration documents showing a registered gold and jewellery business. Although co-accused statements linked the seized gold and cash to the applicant and his brother, the Court found no clear material at the bail stage to prove foreign origin of the recovered jewellery, and treated the reverse burden under Section 123 as a trial issue. With the complaint already filed, custody exceeding four months, and no adequate basis to show flight risk, tampering, or witness influence, the applicant was held entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the material on record, including the statements of co-accused and the seizure of gold and cash, justified continued custody.

Analysis: The applicant produced business records, GST returns, income-tax returns, stock registers and registration documents to show that he was engaged in the gold and jewellery through a registered proprietorship. The record also showed that the co-accused persons described themselves as employees and linked the seized articles to the applicant and his brother. However, apart from those statements, there was no clear material at the bail stage to show with certainty that the recovered gold jewellery had foreign origin. The recovery was not from an airport or border-linked location, and the Court treated the issue of reverse burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 as a matter for trial. The Court also noted that the complaint had already been filed, the applicant had been in custody for more than four months, there was no demonstrated need for further custodial interrogation, and there was no adequate basis to apprehend flight risk, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail.

---