2025 (5) TMI 1290 - HC - Customs

Seeking grant of Bail - Smuggling - seizure of gold - evasion of Customs Duty - HELD THAT - In view of recovery of 3 kg of gold the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly observed that it comes under the category of bailable offence and has rightly granted bail to the Respondents. It is submitted that there is no infirmity in the Bail Order and the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. The allegation of remaining 8 kg of gold is concerned there is no recovery affected from the Respondents but was mentioned by the Respondents in their statements. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned Order dated 09.06.2018 has considered the facts and has granted Bail. It is only incidentally mentioned that the offence disclosed is bailable whereas the Bail has been granted considering the entire facts of the present case. There is no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 09.06.2018. The present Petition and pending Application are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

The Delhi High Court, through Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate's bail order dated 09.06.2018. The petitioner contended that Respondents were involved in possession and dealing of 11 kg of smuggled gold valued at Rs. 3.12 crores, citing precedents such as *K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector* (1997) and *Union of India v. Hasan Ali* (2011) to argue that bail was improperly granted for a non-bailable offence. The respondents and the Magistrate maintained that only 3 kg of gold (valued at Rs. 85 lakhs) was recovered, placing the offence within the category of bailable offences.The Court noted that the bail order was based on the facts and recovery of 3 kg gold, with the "offence disclosed is 'bailable'" mentioned only incidentally. Since no new circumstances had arisen post-bail, the Court found "no infirmity in the impugned Order" and upheld the bail, dismissing the petition.