Mukesh Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Mukesh Kumar. The decision was based on several factors: the petitioner had been in custody since April 5, 2022; the investigation in the case was complete; and crucially, the key to the secret cavity from which the gold bars/bullions and jewelry were recovered was provided by a co-accused, Sacchu Prasad. The Court also noted that Sacchu Prasad had already been granted bail. The Court reasoned that these circumstances, particularly the co-accused's role in providing access to the hidden compartment and his subsequent bail, suggested that the petitioner might not have been fully aware of the consignment. The Court directed the petitioner's release upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. He was apprehended on April 5, 2022, in a car containing gold bars/bullions and jewelry of foreign origin, valued at Rs. 2,08,55,633. The recovery was made from a secret cavity in the car, in which the petitioner was traveling with co-accused. The apprehended individuals, including the petitioner, allegedly admitted their involvement and possession of the smuggled goods from Dubai. The petitioner claims the seized items belong to a co-accused, Sacchu Prasad, a goldsmith involved in wholesale and retail gold jewelry business, whose firm is GST registered. The petitioner also stated he is a goldsmith and was accompanying Sacchu Prasad to explore business markets, and that Sacchu Prasad provided the key to the secret compartment. Sacchu Prasad has already been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with Special Case No. 344 (C) of 2022, arising out of Unit Case No. 01 of 2022-23, registered under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, considering his period of custody and the allegations of smuggling. Petitioner's Arguments: - The seized gold and jewelry belong to co-accused Sacchu Prasad, a GST-registered goldsmith engaged in business. - The allegation of smuggling from Dubai is baseless as the petitioner's entry into Bihar was from Kolkata, not an international border. - The petitioner, also a goldsmith, was accompanying Sacchu Prasad for business exploration. - Sacchu Prasad, who provided the key to the secret cavity, has been granted bail, suggesting the petitioner was unaware of the consignment. - The petitioner has a clean antecedent, and the investigation is complete, minimizing the risk of evidence tampering. Revenue's (Union of India) Arguments: - The Union of India, through the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), opposed the bail prayer. - However, the DRI conceded that Sacchu Prasad claimed ownership of the seized items and that the car was jointly occupied by co-accused.