2018 (11) TMI 1978 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - possession of Gold Bars - instead of taking the signatures of the witnesses present in the compartment A-1 of Saraighat Express from where the petitioner was apprehended took the signature of some others as seizure witnesses - HELD THAT - The status report of the case reveals that the petitioner has been in the illegal business procuring such gold from various places of the Northeast and transporting consignment of such gold bars to different states like West Bengal Bihar etc. Said report also reveals that there are many accused persons involved in the case who being in a racket of such smuggling gold bars from the Northeast of India. Said status report also reveals that the other accursed persons are evading arrest and from the investigation report of the case so far collected by the Investigation Officer of the case establishes involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons in the alleged crime. Conclusion - As the investigation is not yet complete and other co-accused are yet to be arrested/apprehended this Court is of the view that detention of the petitioner in custody since 22.10.2018 cannot be considered for his bail in aforementioned Customs Case. This application of the petitioner namely Kiran Viswanath Patil for his bail in said Customs Case No. 09/CL/IMP/AS/GAU/18-19 stands rejected.

Summary

The Gauhati High Court, through Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak, dismissed the bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Kiran Viswanath Patil in Anti-Smuggling Unit Customs Case No. 09/CL/IMP/AS/GAU/18-19, registered under Sections 7(c) and 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2018 for possession of five gold bars weighing approximately 7998.650 grams, valued at about Rs. 2.62 crore with 99.52% purity. The petitioner contended non-involvement and challenged the seizure procedure, alleging improper witness signatures. The Customs Department submitted a status report indicating ongoing investigation, involvement of multiple accused in a smuggling racket transporting gold from Northeast India to other states, and that co-accused remain at large. The Court emphasized that "the investigation is not yet complete and other co-accused are yet to be arrested/apprehended," thus rejecting bail and holding that the petitioner's detention since 22.10.2018 "cannot be considered for his bail" at this stage.