9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 45(o) of 2023 arising out of Unit Case No. 01 of 2023 dated 26.04.2023 registered for the offence under Sections 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the prosecution, on a secret information regarding consignment of foreign origin gold from New Jalpaiguri to Gorakhpur by train, the Intelligence Officer, DRI, apprehended two persons from berth No. 23 of Coach B-6 of Train No. 15077 (Kamakhya -Gomati Nagar weekly express) on 26.04.2023 and on inquiry made by them, they disclosed their identity as Mahendra Kumar and Acchaibar Gupta, both are stated to be of Gorakhpur and simultaneously they admitted that they were carrying foreign origin gold smuggled from Myanmar to India via Manipur concealing them in their Trolley bags. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- from the premises of the petitioner which was given to his wife Meera Devi by five different persons as per the agreement entered into with them and on bare perusal of the arrest memo, it is apparent that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The investigation of the present case has already been completed and there is no chance of tampering with the evidences. Learned senior counsel further contends that despite any recovery, the petitioner has been taken into custody by the DRI officials mere on bald disclosure of the persons apprehended on the spot which shows the high handedness of the DRI officials. Mere disclosure does not constitute an offence for prosecution of any person, more particularl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady been dealt with by this Court in the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgments, will govern the field:- Precedents P. Chidambaram v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 62046 of 2019 with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. Now, charges have been framed in this, which is evident of from Annexure-3. The petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since17.06.2020., the precedent of another case alone will not be the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purpose of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructiely in the custod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Kolkata, Zonal Unit wherein he has stated that he had come to Kolkata in the year 1996 and worked in a hotel for two years and subsequently moved to Bangkok where he lived for 21 years. He had further admitted that he was indulged in smuggling of foreign clothes and other articles from Thailand and selling the same in Kolkata. He further submits that the CDR of the petitioner suggest that he was regularly in touch with the accused persons as well as Adharam Gupta and other accused persons which constitute an offence against the petitioner punishable under Sections 135(1)(a) & 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act. He also submits that the petitioner carries one more case other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
