2025 (4) TMI 525 - DSC - Customs

Bail cancellation application dismissed in gold smuggling case after 10-month preventive detention under COFEPOSA

The Greater Bombay SC dismissed an application for cancellation of bail in a gold smuggling case. The respondent underwent preventive detention under ... Applicatiion for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent - smuggling of gold into India and selling it in the Grey market - HELD THAT:- This application is filed on 03.05.2024. Thereafter on 16.05.2024, the respondent came to be detained under COFEPOSA Act and he was under detention till 06.03.3025 for a period of almost 10 months. Record shows that this application is not pursued, though reply by the respondent is filed on 07.05.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Joyi Kitty Joseph V/s. Union of India and Ors. also noted submission of both the sides that this application for cancellation of bail was not pursued by both the sides. The respondent having undergone preventive detention for almost 10 months during pendency of this application is a circumstance weighing in favour of the respondent. It is submitted during the course of oral submissions that complaint in the Court is still not filed by the DRI. The period of more than one year from the date of first remand is elapsed. As per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, accused becomes entitled to statutory bail if investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, depending on the punishment provided for the offence - The respondent was already in custody from 06.03.2024 to 16.04.2024 and even otherwise he would have been entitled to statutory bail after the period of 60 days was over. In this view of the matter, the prayer for cancellation of bail coupled with continuation of investigation without filing complaint is not permissible under the law. The Ld. trial Court while deciding the plea of respondent's bail, has considered all the relevant material in detail and released the respondent on bail by imposing certain conditions, which even the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the petition challenging preventive detention of the respondent, was pleased to consider. No supervening circumstances are brought on record which warrant interference under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. in the bail order passed in favour of the respondent. Therefore, after going through the principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by both the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out by the applicant for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent and the application is liable to be rejected. Conclusion - The application for bail cancellation rejected, as no supervening circumstances or breaches of bail conditions were established. Application dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the bail granted to the respondent should be canceled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The specific grounds for seeking cancellation include allegations of the respondent's involvement in a gold smuggling syndicate, non-cooperation during the investigation, potential tampering with evidence, and risk of absconding. The court also examined whether the respondent breached any bail conditions and the implications of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedentsThe legal framework involves Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the cancellation of bail if cogent and overwhelming circumstances exist. The court considered various precedents, including Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, and Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana, which outline the grounds for bail cancellation, such as interference with justice, evasion, and abuse of bail conditions.Court's interpretation and reasoningThe court emphasized that the cancellation of bail requires strong justification, particularly in the absence of supervening circumstances post-bail. It noted that the respondent's preventive detention under COFEPOSA and subsequent release by the Supreme Court indicated no breach of bail conditions.Key evidence and findingsThe evidence included statements from employees confirming the respondent's involvement in smuggling, the discovery of smuggled gold, and cash at the respondent's premises. However, the court found no evidence of bail condition violations, as the respondent attended DRI interrogations and exercised his constitutional right to remain silent.Application of law to factsThe court applied the principles from relevant judgments, emphasizing the need for cogent reasons to cancel bail. It found no breach of condition No.5, which required the respondent to report to the DRI, and noted that the respondent's preventive detention period weighed against bail cancellation.Treatment of competing argumentsThe applicant argued that the respondent's non-cooperation and potential to tamper with evidence justified bail cancellation. The respondent countered that he complied with bail conditions, and his right against self-incrimination was constitutionally protected. The court sided with the respondent, finding no breach of conditions or supervening circumstances.ConclusionsThe court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for bail cancellation. The preventive detention and lack of new evidence or condition breaches supported maintaining the bail.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe court held that 'very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel the bail already granted.' It reiterated that the accused's right to remain silent under Article 20(3) of the Constitution cannot be grounds for bail cancellation. The court emphasized that bail should not be canceled without new circumstances justifying such action.The final determination was to reject the application for bail cancellation, as no supervening circumstances or breaches of bail conditions were established. The court underscored the principle that liberty should not be lightly interfered with, especially in the absence of compelling reasons.