KABC010084412024 IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53) Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2024 PRESENT Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Crl.Misc.No.2979/2024 Petitioner Sri.Haneet Singh Sethi S/o Inderjeet Singh, Aged about 23 years, R/at WZ-34,F/F, Sant Nagar Extn., Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018. (By Sri.Balakrishna Jagtap, Advocate -V/S- Respondent : Sri.Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bengaluru. (Represented by learned Special Public Prosecutor) Crl.M.2979/2024

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge him on bail in F.No.DRI/S-IV/ENQ- 25 (INT-NIL) 2023 Cr.No.24/2024, for the offence punishable u/Sec.135 of Customs Act 1962, pending on the file of learned Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru.

2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent has

registered a case in F.No.DRI/S-IV/ENQ-25 (INT-NIL) 2023 Cr.No.24/2024 against the petitioner alleging the offence punishable u/Sec.135 of Customs Act 1962. The respondent police during the course of investigation of the case have arrested the petitioner on 20.03.2024 and produced him before the learned Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by Learned Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence. The respondent police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the aforesaid crime number. The petitioner has not violated the provisions of the Customs Act and has not involved in smuggling the gold. The petitioner is the permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title. The petitioner hails from the respectable family and has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions Crl.M.2979/2024 imposed by this court for his enlargement on bail and he is ready to furnish suitable surety for his appearance before the court. Hence, the petitioner has prayed to allow their petition.

3. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has filed

objections to the bail petition filed by the petitioner by contending that the respondent holds a prima facie case against the petitioner who has been apprehended red handedly smuggling 2,541 grams of gold valued at Rs.1,55,72,088/- which is in violation of Baggage Rules 2016 and punishable u/Sec.135 of the Customs Act. The respondent has duly followed all the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and has no way violated Sec.102 of Customs Act. The offence committed by the petitioner has serious ramifications affecting the fabric of Indian Economy and Security. The accused has abetted an offence of smuggling gold affecting the business of genuine traders and also trying to jeopardize the legal economy. The learned Special Court for Economic Offence has rightly rejected the bail application of the petitioner. Hence, Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has prayed to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the arguments of Learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the petitioner. The Crl.M.2979/2024 learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the petitioner have filed written arguments with documents. Perused the petition, objection, written arguments and other materials on record.

5. Having done so, the following points will arise for my

consideration: (1) Whether the bail petition filed by the petitioner u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is deserves to be allowed? (2) What order?

6. My findings on the above points are as under:

(1) Point No.1 .. In the Affirmative (2) Point No.2 .. As per final order for the following: R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- The respondent authority has registered

case in F.No.DRI/S-IV/ENQ-25 (INT-NIL) 2023 Cr.No.24/2024, against the petitioner by alleging the commission of offence punishable u/Sec.135 of Customs Act 1962.

8. As per the case of the complainant, on

20.03.2024 credible information was received to the effect that one passenger by name Haneef Singh Seti, resident of Delhi, Crl.M.2979/2024 having Indian passport No.AC2926731 would be travelling from Dubai to Bengaluru via Emirates Air line flight No.EK-564 schedule to arrive at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru on 20.03.2024. The said passenger was intercepted and enquired whether he is in possession of any goods which requires declaration to be made before Custom Authority under law. On examination of the backpack of Haneef Singh Seti, it was found that the said person was carrying two metal bars covered by brown tape and one heavy packet insulated that have been weighed about 2514 grams of gold. The said item was tested by Gold Appraiser and he has issued certificate reporting it as crude gold of 24 carrot and its net weight is 2453 grams valued at Rs.1,55,72,088/-. Hence, the respondent authority have seized the gold from the passenger by drawing mahazar on 20.03.2024 and arrested the petitioner on 20.03.2024 for commission of offence punishable u/Sec.135 of Customs Act and for violation of Baggage Rules and provisions of Customs Act.

9. The petitioner was produced before the learned

Special Court for Economic Offences. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner has filed bail application u/Sec.437 of Cr.P.C. before learned Special Court for Economic Offences. The said application was heard on merits and the learned Special Court for Economic Offences, Crl.M.2979/2024 was pleased to dismiss the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 25.03.2024. As such, the petitioner has filed this petition praying to enlarge him on bail by contending that he has not violated the provisions of Customs Act and he was not involved in smuggling the gold and he has been falsely implicated by the respondent authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent authority has not seized any gold from the petitioner and the petitioner was not smuggling any gold with him and he has been falsely implicated by the respondent authority. It is further argued that no mahazar was conducted as alleged in the remand application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo stating that the gold alleged to have been seized by the authority is not belonging to him and it is not seized from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is not going to claim the said gold. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.

10. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The alleged offences are triable by learned Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru. As per the respondent authority, the gold is seized from the possession of the petitioner by conducting mahazar. Now the petitioner is in Crl.M.2979/2024 judicial custody. Whether the petitioner was smuggling the gold as alleged in the remand application or not and whether the said gold is recovered from the possession of the petitioner by conducting mahazar or not and whether the petitioner has illegally smuggling the gold by avoiding payment of duty to the government and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec.135 of Customs Act or not has to be adjudicated only after full-fledged trial. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for further investigation of the case.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Balachandh @ Baliya (AIR 1977 SC 2447) and in many other cases has laid down the legal doctrine that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”. This legal doctrine is laid down for safe guarding a fundamental right under article 21 of Constitution of India, granting the right to life and liberty. The petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest.

12. Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any

terms and conditions imposed by the court for his enlargement on bail. He is also ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the court for his appearance before the respondent authority. He is also ready to co-operate with the Crl.M.2979/2024 investigation of the case. As it is rightly observed by the learned presiding officer of Special Court for Economic Offences, the offence alleged against the petitioner is pertaining to financial matter. But only on the said ground, the bail to the petitioner cannot be rejected. The petitioner has specifically contending by filing memo before this court that the gold alleged to have been seized by the respondent authority is not belonging to him and he will not claim the said gold. The prosecution has establish during trial that the gold is seized from the petitioner and to prove that the petitioner has smuggled the gold and he has to pay the duty to the government.

13. As it is rightly argued by the learned SPP, the

investigation of the case is still in progress. The petitioner is permanent resident of Delhi. If he is enlarged on bail, there is possibility of petitioner absconding and there is possibility that the petitioner may not pay required Custom Duty to the authority if it is proved that the petitioner has illegally smuggled the gold by violating Customs Act. As such, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions so as to ensure the presence of the petitioner during the course of investigation of the case. Further the presence of the petitioner during the course of investigation of the case by the respondent authority Crl.M.2979/2024 can be secured by imposing stringent conditions. Further the apprehension of the prosecution regarding absconding of petitioner during the course of investigation of the case can be make good by imposing stringent conditions. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail by imposing certain stringent conditions. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.

14. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner/Accused U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The petitioner/Accused is enlarged on bail in F.No.DRI/S-IV/ENQ-25 (INT-NIL) 2023 Cr.No.24/2024 for the offence punishable u/Sec.135 of Customs Act 1962, pending on the file of Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru, on petitioner furnishing personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru, with the following further conditions: CONDITIONS (1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days on Sunday for the period of 2 months or till the completion of investigation of the case whichever is earlier. (2) The petitioner shall furnish all necessary information and documents as sought for by I.O. and he shall co-operate Crl.M.2979/2024 with the investigation of the case and he shall appear before I.O. as and when called for by I.O. for investigation of the case. (3) The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly on all hearing dates during the trial of the case. (4) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or any hamper with the evidence. (5) The petitioner shall not commit offence of similar in nature or any other offence in future. (6) The petitioner shall furnish his correct address proof before the trial court. (7) The petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the jurisdictional Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru. (8) The petitioner shall surrender his pass port before the learned Special Court For Economic Offences, Bengaluru, for the period of two months or till the investigation of the case is completed which ever is earlier. After the said period, the petitioner is at liberty to take back the same. (9) Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would entitle for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of April, 2024). (B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.M.2979/2024 Crl.M.2979/2024