The Court of Sessions at Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, delivered a significant order on March 30, 2024, granting bail to the applicant, Ms. Sonali Baburao Bhalerao, in Criminal Bail Application No. 620 of 2024. The applicant, a housekeeping staff member at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International (CSMI) Airport, was arrested by the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) for offenses under Sections 135(1)(b) (Smuggling of Goods) and 104 (Power to Arrest) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court’s decision was rooted in the principle that pre-trial detention is unwarranted when the investigation’s main objective is achieved and the accused’s role is peripheral, providing a key precedent for Customs Act cases and economic offenses blogs where the principle of proportionality is crucial.
The Prosecution’s Case: The Airport Conduit
The AIU’s case was based on specific intelligence that international transit passengers planned to hand over gold to a housekeeping staff member working in the Adani Lounge at CSMI Airport. Following this information, the officers apprehended the applicant, Ms. Sonali Bhalerao, at the International departure/transit area. Upon questioning, she admitted to receiving two pouches of gold dust in wax form from two foreign nationals in a Level 4 toilet and hiding them in a first-class toilet on Level 3.
The Customs officers subsequently recovered the pouches, which contained 3,285 grams of 24 KT gold dust valued at ₹1,81,46,044/-. The applicant’s voluntary statement, recorded on February 8, 2024, confirmed her possession, carriage, and intent to smuggle the gold for a monetary consideration of ₹50,000/- upon delivery outside the airport. This act formed the basis of the charge under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.
Judicial Rationale: Limited Role and No Need for Further Custody
The defense, represented by Advocate Mr. Arun Gupta, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that the applicant had no substantial connection to the offense and that the recovered gold was not even in her direct possession at the time of the search.
The Court thoroughly reviewed the records and the procedural history, noting several critical facts that weighed in favor of granting bail. The most important observation was the completion of the investigation’s core objectives. The applicant was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on February 8, 2024, and the prosecution immediately prayed for judicial custody, indicating that “no substantial part of investigation related to the applicant was remained pending.” Crucially, “whatever recovery was expected in the offence is already made on the date of arrest of the accused.”
Furthermore, the Court meticulously assessed the limited nature of the applicant’s role in the sophisticated smuggling operation. The order explicitly states, “She is not the main accused.” Her involvement was restricted to “providing facility to keep the gold hidden in the toilet” for a relatively small consideration of ₹50,000/-. She was not the actual smuggler responsible for bringing the high-value gold into the country. The Court invoked the established legal principle, citing precedents like Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, that continued incarceration is unwarranted when a reasonable condition can secure the accused’s presence for trial, especially when the recovery is complete and the primary role in the alleged crime rests with others.
Conditional Release and Ongoing Compliance
Based on the completion of the investigation and the minimal, non-principal role of the applicant, the Court ruled that her continued incarceration since February 8, 2024, was unwarranted. Criminal Bail Application No. 620 of 2024 was allowed.
The applicant, Ms. Sonali Baburao Bhalerao, was ordered to be released on furnishing a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties. To ease the process, provisional cash bail in the like amount was allowed for four weeks. The Court imposed strict conditions to safeguard the trial’s integrity:
- The applicant must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- She must attend the office of the AIU (Respondent) every Monday between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., till the filing of the charge-sheet. This condition ensures her cooperation with the remaining investigation formalities.
- She shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
This judgment serves as an important judicial check, preventing the indefinite detention of secondary or facilitative accused once all necessary recoveries and interrogations are complete, particularly in complex economic offense cases.