Customs Act confession needs corroboration as bail was granted where independent evidence and custody concerns were weak.

In a Customs Act prosecution, bail was granted because the material then available did not provide strong independent corroboration of the allegations. The Court noted that no gold was recovered from the applicant and that the call records and mobile-data extraction were not shown to be clearly linked to the alleged offence or any transaction. It held that a statement under section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible, but it cannot by itself sustain adverse action without corroboration. Custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, the investigation had concluded, and no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, in view of the material collected by the prosecution, the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the absence of strong corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of smuggling-related offences under the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution relied on interception, recovery from co-accused, call detail records, mobile-data extraction, and the applicant's statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted that no gold was recovered from the applicant and that the prosecution had not placed strong independent evidence showing that the communications relied upon were specifically connected with the alleged offence or that they led to any transaction. The Court further held that a statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible, but it cannot blindly be accepted as the sole basis for conviction without corroboration by independent evidence. The Court also took into account that the investigation had concluded, the complaint had been filed, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, there was no apparent risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the applicant had no previous criminal history.

Conclusion: The applicant was found entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: Liberty was granted in the exercise of bail jurisdiction, the Court having found the prosecution material insufficient at that stage to deny release.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, though admissible, cannot by itself sustain adverse action without independent corroboration, and bail may be granted where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and the risk of interference with the trial is not shown.

---