Reyaj Miyan vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Reyaj Miyan. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the Court's finding on the bailability of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the value of the recovered gold, it implicitly acknowledges the applicant's submission regarding the same by proceeding to grant bail. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the arguments advanced by both parties. It found the case to be a fit one for granting bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to several conditions aimed at ensuring his presence during trial and preventing misuse of liberty, including undertaking not to seek adjournments on witness presence dates, remaining present on fixed dates, and facing consequences for deliberate absence or misuse of bail. The Court also noted that any violation of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Reyaj Miyan (the applicant) in connection with Case Crime No. Nil of 2022, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The alleged offence pertains to the recovery of 646.500 grams of gold, valued at Rs. 32,97,150/-, from the applicant at Lal Bahadur Shastri International Airport, Varanasi. The applicant has been in jail since February 19, 2022. The State of U.P. and the Customs, CGST & Central Excise Department are the opposite parties. The applicant contends the offence is bailable as the value of the recovered gold is less than Rs. 50 lacs, citing sub-sections (6) & (7) of Section 104 of the Customs Act. He also claims no prior criminal history, lack of independent witnesses for recovery, and no search conducted before a Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, involving gold valued at Rs. 32,97,150/-, is a bailable offence as per sub-sections (6) & (7) of Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, thereby entitling the applicant to bail? The applicant argued that the offence is bailable because the value of the recovered gold (Rs. 32,97,150/-) is less than Rs. 50 lacs, as stipulated by sub-sections (6) & (7) of Section 104 of the Customs Act. He further contended that he has no previous criminal history, no independent witness was present during the alleged recovery, and no search was conducted before a Magistrate, suggesting procedural irregularities. The applicant also submitted that the offence is non-cognizable and that there is no apprehension of him fleeing from justice or misusing bail liberty, given his prolonged incarceration and the bleak prospect of a speedy trial. The State of U.P. and the Customs, CGST & Central Excise Department opposed the bail application.