Dilip Kumar Sasmal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court decided to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail, subject to stringent conditions. The reasoning was based on the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, his lack of similar criminal antecedents, and the fact that his custodial interrogation was complete. The Court found these factors sufficient to incline towards granting bail, despite the serious nature of the allegations and the value of the seized gold. The ratio decidendi is that while the gravity of the offence and the value of seized goods are important, factors such as the petitioner's background, lack of prior offenses, and completion of custodial interrogation can weigh in favor of granting bail. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail on terms and conditions fixed by the learned Court below, specifically mentioning cooperation with the investigation, presence in court, depositing his passport, not leaving Odisha without permission, and not committing similar offenses while on bail. Violation of any condition would lead to cancellation of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Dilip Kumar Sasmal, has been in custody since September 5, 2023, in connection with a case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special), Cuttack. The allegations involve possession of 2465.710 grams of foreign gold biscuits valued at Rs. 1,51,02,473/- without valid documents. The trial court rejected his bail application on September 8, 2023, citing the petitioner's failure to produce documents for the gold's possession and the incomplete inquiry. The prosecution contends that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation, failed to name the source of the gold, and that individuals named by him denied supplying the gold. The petitioner claims to be a goldsmith who received the gold from jewelry shop owners for preparing ornaments over seven years and has not imported it. He argues he has no criminal antecedents, has undergone custodial interrogation twice, and his family and work are suffering due to his incarceration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, considering the gravity of the alleged offence under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, the value of the seized gold, and the ongoing investigation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, Dilip Kumar Sasmal, argued that he has been in custody since September 5, 2023, has no criminal antecedents, and has already undergone custodial interrogation twice, making further interrogation unnecessary. He asserted he is a goldsmith who received gold from various jewelry shop owners in good faith for making ornaments and did not import it. He also highlighted the financial hardship his family and work are facing due to his incarceration and expressed willingness to abide by any bail conditions. Revenue's arguments: The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, opposed the bail plea. They argued that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation, failed to disclose the source of the gold, and individuals named by him denied supplying it. The high value of the seized gold (Rs. 1,51,02,473/-) attracts a serious offence under Section 135(1)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, carrying imprisonment up to seven years. The revenue also contended that the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence if released, as the investigation is ongoing.