The Court of the LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), presided over by Sri B.G. Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B., delivered a judicial order on April 2, 2024, allowing a regular bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2979/2024 extended regular bail protection to Sri Haneet Singh Sethi, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with case file F.No. DRI/S-IV/ENQ-25 (INT-NIL) 2023, Crime No. 24/2024, registered by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Bengaluru. The petitioner faced prosecution for alleged offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, pending on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.

The criminal proceedings originated from intelligence gathered by the DRI authorities on March 20, 2024. According to the prosecution case set out in the complaint, credible information was received that a passenger named Haneet Singh Sethi, a resident of Delhi holding an Indian passport, was travelling from Dubai to Bengaluru via Emirates Airlines flight EK-564, scheduled to arrive at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru on March 20, 2024. Upon arrival, the passenger was intercepted and questioned regarding whether he was in possession of any goods requiring mandatory declaration to customs authorities. Upon examining his backpack, the officers discovered two metal bars covered in brown tape and a heavy insulated packet containing crude gold. A gold appraiser tested the recovered material, certifying it as 24-karat crude gold with a net weight of 2,453 grams, valued at ₹1,55,72,088/-. The DRI officials seized the gold under a spot mahazar and arrested the petitioner on March 20, 2024, for violating the Baggage Rules, 2016, and provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Following his production before the Special Court for Economic Offences, his initial bail plea was rejected on March 25, 2024, leading to the regular bail petition before the Sessions Court.

Seeking regular bail, the 23-year-old petitioner approached the Sessions Court through his legal counsel, Sri Balakrishna Jagtap, asserting complete innocence and maintaining that he had not violated the provisions of the Customs Act, was not involved in smuggling gold, and had been falsely implicated by the respondent authority. The defense contended that no gold was seized from his possession as alleged in the remand application and that no proper mahazar was conducted. Furthermore, the petitioner filed a formal memo stating that the gold seized by the authorities did not belong to him, was not recovered from his physical possession, and that he disclaimed any ownership or claim over the said gold. It was further submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Tilak Nagar, Delhi, hails from a respectable family with no prior criminal antecedents, and is ready to furnish solvent sureties and comply with stringent conditions.

The bail application was strongly contested by the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the DRI, who filed detailed written objections and arguments. The state urged the court to reject the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner was apprehended red-handed while smuggling over 2.5 kilograms of gold valued in excess of ₹1.55 Crores in flagrant violation of the Baggage Rules and Customs Act. The prosecution argued that economic offences involving large-scale gold smuggling have serious ramifications affecting the national economy, financial fabric, and legal trade markets, and that the Special Court had rightly denied bail given the active investigation stage and risk of abscondence.

Upon evaluating the rival submissions, reviewing the case records, FIR, remand applications, and written arguments, Judge B.G. Pramoda focused on the core points for consideration. The court observed that while the economic offence alleged under Section 135 of the Customs Act is serious and triable by the Special Court for Economic Offences, it does not carry a mandatory sentence of death or life imprisonment. Noting that the petitioner filed a specific memo disclaiming any ownership or claim over the seized gold, the court held that whether the gold was recovered from his possession and whether he attempted to evade customs duty remain matters for evidentiary establishment during a full-fledged trial, and that further custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. Citing the foundational constitutional doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, which reaffirms that bail is the rule and jail is an exception under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court concluded that pre-trial detention should not be utilized as punishment and that the prosecution’s concerns regarding investigation cooperation and trial attendance could be fully safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions, including passport surrender and regular reporting.

Consequently, the Sessions Court answered the point for consideration in the affirmative and allowed the regular bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court ordered that Haneet Singh Sethi be enlarged on bail in connection with DRI Crime No. 24/2024, pending before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, upon furnishing a personal bond for ₹2,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court, subject to the following strict conditions:

• The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once every 15 days on Sundays for a period of two months or until completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier.
• He shall furnish all necessary information and documents sought by the Investigating Officer, cooperate fully with the investigation, and appear before the officer as and when called.
• He shall appear before the trial court regularly on all hearing dates.
• He 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 them from disclosing facts or tamper with evidence.
• He shall not commit any offence of a similar nature or any other offence in the future and shall furnish correct residential address proof.
• He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.
• He shall surrender his passport before the Special Court for Economic Offences for a period of two months or until the completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier, with liberty to retrieve the same thereafter.