TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the trial in complaint in DRI Case No.38 of 2024, titled : Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma and others, under sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(i)(A) Customs Act, 1962, Police Station D.R.I. Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. 2. The above complaint has been filed by Punyadeep Bhaskar, Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Noida, Regional Unit, Noida, with the allegations that an intelligence input was received that two persons are carrying smuggled gold, who are travelling in roadways bus from New Delhi to Firozabad, and the same was acted upon by a team of DRI Officers, Noida accompanied by two independent witnesses (panchas). The team intercepted U.P. roadways bus bearing registration No. UP 78 J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all the three pieces was assessed at Rs.1,49,48,600/-. The two pieces of gold weighing 172 gms and 828 gms valued at Rs.12,85,580/- and 61,88,720/-, respectively, whereas the gold recovered from Sudhir was valued at Rs.74,74,300/-. The persons carrying illicit foreign origin gold could not produce any document showing licit import, possession and transportation of 2000 gms of gold recovered from their possession and they both informed that the recovered gold bars were smuggled, which was brought in India by carriers of Pandit Ji @ Naresh @ Naresh Delhi whose details are not known. Subsequently, the statements of accused were recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 wherein they stated that they were given an amount of Rs.1 crore 44 Lakh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the applicants being in custody since their arrest on 12.7.2024 are not required for any purpose, therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the accused Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Tufial Vs. Union of India And Another passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57731 of 2022, and argued that in the said case, the recovery of gold effected from two persons was collectively valued more than Rs.1 Crore, but this Court upon analyzing the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 held that the individual recovery from each accused is to be seen, and accordingly extended the concession of bail to the accused persons on the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s complete, therefore, he prays that the applicants be released on bail. 7. The prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for UOI, who has argued that specific secret input was received about the transportation of illegal smuggled gold by two persons and at the time of seizure of the said gold from accused Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar, no invoices or documents relating to the said material was shown by them. Learned counsel has further argued that the statement made by the accused under section 108 Customs Act would be admissible in evidence and according to their stand the accused have confessed that the recovered gold is a smuggled article. Mr. Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for UOI submitted that the recovery of gold is va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s bus wherein accused persons Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar were travelling and from them 1 kg gold each was recovered. Of course, the value of the recovered gold individually is below 1 Crore whereas collectively, it is more than 1 crore, but while deciding the prayer for bail, this Court is not inclined to make any comment on the nature of offence whether it is bailable or non-bailable. No doubt, in the case of Mohd. Tufial (supra), this Court has observed that the recovery effected from each accused is to be considered to determine the nature of the offence, but this Court is not inclined to comment upon the nature of the alleged offence, if, it would fall under section 104(6) or 104(7) Customs Act, 1962 as the charges against the a....