9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (7) TMI 87 - DSC - CustomsSeeking grant of bail - Smuggling - recovery of 112 I-Phones 102 refurbished laptops 6 Google Pixel phones 216 pieces of cosmetics and 94, 951 grams of tobacco - existence of documentary evidence on record to show that applicant is involved in smuggling of seized goods alongwith others or not - HELD THAT - The nature and seriousness of the offence alleged the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Appreciating the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail a balance has to be struck between two factors namely no prejudice should be caused to the free fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. The discretion is to be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of particular case. Evaluating the entire available material carefully rulings cited by the respondent are not helpful to them. Consequently appreciating the relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail with the present set of circumstances prima-facie case is made out by the applicant/accused for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest of the applicant registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Mumbai Zonal Unit for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a)(i)(A) 135(1)(a)(i)(B) 135(1)(b)(i)(A) 135(1)(b)(i)(B) of the Customs Act 1962 on fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicant/accused facing charges under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to alleged smuggling and seizure of prohibited goods. - Whether the pooling of values of seized goods from multiple accused persons to justify arrest and denial of bail is legally valid. - The applicability and interpretation of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act versus statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the bail stage. - The relevance and impact of the applicant's alleged role as mastermind in the smuggling operation based on statements of co-accused and investigation findings. - The balance between safeguarding the investigation and preventing harassment or unjustified detention of the accused in granting anticipatory bail. - The applicability of relevant judicial precedents and guidelines concerning bail in socio-economic offences and customs violations. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Grant of anticipatory bail in offences under the Customs Act involving smuggling of prohibited goods Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Customs Act, 1962, specifically sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A), 135(1)(a)(i)(B), 135(1)(b)(i)(A), and 135(1)(b)(i)(B), prescribe penalties for smuggling and related offences. Section 108 permits recording of statements by customs officials, which serve as material evidence. The Supreme Court rulings in Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar and State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal emphasize the serious nature of economic offences and the need for strict bail considerations. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the gravity of economic offences and the potential harm to the national economy but also recognized that the six passengers from whom goods were seized had been granted bail by the jurisdictional court. The Court noted that the applicant's anticipatory bail application must be considered balancing the seriousness of the offence with the prevention of harassment and unjustified detention. Key evidence and findings: The prosecution relied on seizure of prohibited goods valued at approximately Rs. 1.48 crore from six passengers arriving from Sharjah, and statements under Section 108 implicating the applicant as the mastermind. However, the applicant challenged the pooling of values of goods seized from different persons and denied involvement, highlighting absence of documentary evidence directly linking him to smuggling. Application of law to facts: The Court observed that the goods were seized individually from six persons, who had already been granted bail, and questioned the rationale behind aggregating the value of goods for arresting the applicant. The Court found merit in the applicant's contention that each accused's possession and recovery should be considered separately for bail purposes, consistent with precedents like Sagar Nana Borkar v. State of Maharashtra and Smt. Rashida Iqbal Khan v. State of Maharashtra. Treatment of competing arguments: While the respondent emphasized the applicant's alleged mastermind role and the need for custodial interrogation to prevent evidence tampering, the Court noted that the seized goods were already in official custody and witnesses were government employees, reducing the risk of tampering. The Court also found that the respondent failed to adequately justify the combined valuation approach. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail and that the concerns of the respondent could be addressed through appropriate bail conditions. Issue 2: Validity and evidentiary value of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act at bail stage Relevant legal framework and precedents: Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are material evidence but differ from statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in Naresh J. Shukawani v. Union of India held that such statements can be used to connect the accused with the offence. However, in P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was clarified that at the bail stage, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are primarily considered, and police statements under Section 161 are not decisive. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the incriminating nature of statements under Section 108 but emphasized that at the anticipatory bail stage, the material must be carefully examined without prejudging the case. The Court noted that the applicant's alleged involvement as mastermind was based on statements of co-accused, which require further investigation and cannot alone justify denial of bail. Key evidence and findings: The prosecution's reliance on statements identifying the applicant as mastermind was countered by the applicant's denial and lack of documentary evidence. The Court found that these statements, while relevant, did not conclusively establish guilt at this stage. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that anticipatory bail is not to be denied solely on the basis of incriminating statements but must consider the totality of circumstances and the risk of tampering or absconding. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the applicant's non-cooperation and false accusations. The Court balanced this against the applicant's readiness to cooperate and abide by conditions, and the absence of evidence indicating risk of tampering. Conclusions: The Court held that the statements under Section 108, though material, did not preclude grant of anticipatory bail subject to conditions. Issue 3: Pooling of seized goods' values from multiple accused to determine arrest and bail Relevant legal framework and precedents: The applicant cited guidelines issued by the Customs Board fixing a threshold CIF value of Rs. 1 crore or more for arrest and prosecution. The Court referred to rulings such as Sagar Nana Borkar and Rashida Iqbal Khan, which emphasize separate consideration of contraband recovered from different accused for bail purposes. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the respondent arbitrarily pooled the value of goods seized from six different persons to justify arrest and deny bail to the applicant. The Court found this approach inconsistent with precedents and guidelines, especially since the other accused had been granted bail. Key evidence and findings: The seized goods were recovered individually from six passengers, with no documentary evidence linking the applicant directly to all goods collectively. The pooling inflated the value attributed to the applicant's alleged involvement. Application of law to facts: The Court held that the value of goods seized from the applicant's cousin's shop (11 I-Phones) and the applicant's alleged involvement should be assessed independently rather than aggregating with other accused's seizures. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent did not satisfactorily address why the values were combined, weakening the justification for custodial arrest of the applicant. Conclusions: Pooling of values was found to be arbitrary and not a valid ground for denying anticipatory bail. Issue 4: Balancing investigation interests and protection of accused's rights in anticipatory bail Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to principles that while the nature and seriousness of the offence and risk of tampering are relevant, bail should not be denied to prevent harassment or unjustified detention. The Supreme Court rulings emphasize that bail is the rule, not the exception, except in socio-economic offences where stricter scrutiny applies. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the serious nature of smuggling offences but noted that the applicant's anticipatory bail application must be decided on available material and facts. The Court sought a balance between enabling a fair investigation and preventing undue hardship to the accused. Key evidence and findings: The applicant's willingness to cooperate, the custody of seized goods by authorities, and the absence of direct evidence of tampering weighed in favor of bail. The respondent's apprehensions were addressed through bail conditions. Application of law to facts: The Court imposed conditions restricting the applicant's movements, attendance at the investigating agency, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and requirement to keep contact details updated, ensuring investigation integrity. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the prosecution's need for custodial interrogation against the applicant's rights and the absence of compelling reasons for detention. Conclusions: The Court granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation while protecting the applicant's liberty. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "Though in many cases, it has been held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule." "The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book... An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit, regardless of the consequences to the Community." "The recovery of the contraband from the possession of the Applicant and co-accused should be considered separately... pooling the value of the goods seized individually from them for the purpose of arresting the accused and sending them to judicial custody is arbitrary." "The statement made before the Customs officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a material piece of evidence but does not preclude grant of anticipatory bail." "A balance has to be struck between no prejudice to free, fair and full investigation and prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused." Final determinations on each issue: - Anticipatory bail was allowed to the applicant in the Customs Act offence, subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation and preventing interference with witnesses. - The pooling of seized goods' values from multiple accused to justify arrest was rejected as arbitrary and legally unsound. - Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, while incriminating, do not automatically bar grant of anticipatory bail. - The Court emphasized the necessity to balance the investigation's integrity with protection of accused's liberty rights.
|
