Customs statement evidence alone cannot justify custody; bail granted where section 108 material lacked corroboration and recovery was absent.

A statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible, but it cannot by itself justify continued pre-trial detention or sustain conviction unless supported by independent corroborative material and shown to be voluntary and trustworthy. In a customs prosecution under section 135, the Court considered the absence of any prohibited or restricted article recovery, the filing of the complaint, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and the limited risk of tampering or witness intimidation. On that basis, bail was found justified and the applicant was ordered to be released on conditions, with the trial to proceed on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a customs prosecution under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether a statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could by itself justify continued custody without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The application arose from alleged smuggling-related interception and subsequent recovery proceedings. The Court noted that no prohibited or restricted articles were recovered from the applicant's possession or residence, and that the complaint had already been filed, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation. The Court distinguished admissibility of a statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 from the separate question whether such a statement, standing alone, could sustain conviction. It held that a confessional statement under section 108 cannot be blindly relied upon unless supported by independent evidence or material, and that its voluntariness and truthfulness must be examined. The Court also considered the absence of criminal history, the period of incarceration, the stage of trial, and the low risk of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

Conclusion: Bail was found to be justified, and the applicant was entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed on the basis that the existing material did not warrant continued pre-trial detention, and the matter was left to be tried on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, though admissible, cannot by itself justify denial of bail or sustain conviction unless it is supported by independent corroborative material and is shown to be voluntary and trustworthy.

---