Nandlal S/O Shri Shrichand vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Nandlal, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.VIII(48) AP/24/2023-24, registered at the Customs Commissionerate, Jaipur. The allegations against him are for illegally importing 6500 gm of gold, with offenses under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner argued that the maximum punishment under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, does not exceed 5 years. He also pointed out that a co-accused, Mohd. Ayub, was released on bail for a similar offense, that he has no previous antecedents, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time. The respondent, Union of India, opposed the bail application but could not controvert the petitioner's contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, releasing the petitioner, Nandlal, on bail. The Court considered the rival contentions of both parties. It noted that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents for similar offenses and has been in incarceration since October 4, 2023. Taking into account the period of punishment provided under the statute and in view of the order of the Apex Court in Ratnambar Kaushik (Supra), where bail was granted after the petitioner had undergone incarceration for over four months, the Court deemed it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. The decision was made without commenting on the merits of the case. The petitioner is to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner repeats the same nature of offense, it will be open for the respondent to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering the nature of the alleged offense, the period of incarceration already undergone, the maximum punishment prescribed, and the pendency of the trial? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Sections 132 & 135 of the Customs Act, 1962). Petitioner's Arguments: - The maximum punishment under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, does not exceed 5 years. - A co-accused, Mohd. Ayub, has been released on bail for a similar offense. - The petitioner has no previous antecedents. - The conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time. - Relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1678], particularly paragraph 6, which granted bail after the petitioner had undergone incarceration for over four months, considering the evidence was largely documentary and electronic, and the trial would take time. Respondent's Arguments: - The Union of India opposed the bail application but did not controvert the petitioner's contentions.