Accused granted bail in customs duty case involving 999 grams gold recovery, offense appears compoundable under Section 137(3)

HC granted bail to accused in customs duty case involving 999 grams gold recovery from vehicle at toll plaza. Court noted trial not commenced, accused's complicity undetermined, gold in department custody, offense appears compoundable under Section 137(3) Customs Act, no criminal antecedents, accused willing to deposit customs duty, and imprisoned since June 2024. Bail allowed under Sections 135(1)(a), (b), 135(1)(i)(a) Customs Duty Act 1962 with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Bail application under Sections 135(1)(a), (b), 135(1)(i)(a) of Customs Duty Act, 1962

Analysis:
1. The bail application was filed by the applicant involved in a case under Sections 135(1)(a), (b), 135(1)(i)(a) of the Customs Duty Act, 1962. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was found in possession of gold, suspected to be smuggled, during a car interception at a toll plaza. The recovery included gold bars and jewelry items from the applicant and another person in the car.

2. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that he was falsely implicated and had no knowledge of the alleged offense. It was argued that the recovered gold belonged to a co-accused who owned a jewelry shop and that the applicant was merely an employee. The defense contended that the gold was not proven to be smuggled and the investigation conducted by D.R.I. Officers was flawed.

3. The defense further argued that the recovery memo and inventory were prepared improperly, and the prosecution's evidence lacked corroboration. It was emphasized that the recovered gold fell under the "restricted category" and not the "prohibited category," which would only require payment of customs duty. Additionally, it was claimed that the value of the gold recovered was below the threshold for prosecution, making the offense compoundable.

4. The defense cited circulars and legal provisions to support the bail application, highlighting previous cases where bail was granted in similar circumstances. The defense also challenged the legality of the order rejecting bail by the Sessions Judge and emphasized the applicant's willingness to cooperate in the trial if granted bail.

5. The opposition argued that the recovery of gold from both accused persons in the car should be considered a joint recovery, exceeding the Rupees One Crore limit. It was contended that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for possessing the illegal gold and was involved in smuggling activities. The opposition stressed that the prosecution had followed all statutory provisions and there was no possibility of false implication at that stage.

6. After considering the submissions and the record, the court found that as the trial had not commenced, the accused's complicity was yet to be determined. The court noted that the offense appeared to be compoundable under the Customs Act, and the applicant had no criminal antecedents. The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to specific conditions, including appearance before the trial court, non-involvement in criminal activities, surrender of passport, and compliance with bail conditions.

7. The court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and sureties. Breach of bail conditions would empower the prosecution to seek bail cancellation.

---