Bharat Prasad Yadav vs. The Directorate Revenue Intelligence Regional Unit, Patna
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Bharat Prasad Yadav, seeks bail in DRI Case No. 32(0)/2024, arising from DRI Patna Case No. 10/2024-2025. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleges the petitioner was found with 7,979.60 grams of gold jewellery, valued at Rs. 4,66,68,897/-, concealed in a secret cavity in a car. The petitioner claims innocence, states he has no criminal antecedents, and has been in judicial custody since June 30, 2024. He asserts he was transporting the jewellery to Patna for sale and lacked legal documents for it. The prosecution's case is based on the petitioner's statement during inquiry and the recovery of the gold. The petitioner's bail application is opposed by the DRI, citing the rejection of bail for other accused in a similar case.
Held
The Court, having heard the learned counsel for both parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The Court's decision is primarily based on the petitioner's submissions regarding the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the principle that such statements should not be treated as conclusive proof without corroboration, and the fact that the investigation has been completed with the filing of a charge-sheet. The Court also took into account the judgments cited by the petitioner, particularly those emphasizing the grant of bail pending trial in economic offences once investigation is complete and the potential for trial to take time. The reasoning aligns with the principle that liberty is the rule and jail is the exception, especially when the accused has no criminal antecedents and has undergone significant pre-trial incarceration. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction is to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, without corroboration, can be the sole basis for denying bail, particularly when the petitioner claims innocence and has no criminal antecedents? (Framed as a question of mixed law and fact, turning on the evidentiary value of statements under Section 108 and principles of bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act should not be treated as gospel truth without corroboration, citing Supreme Court judgments in K.I. Pavunny vs. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise and Union of India vs. Kisan Ratan Singh. He further contends that the Supreme Court in Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India granted bail in a GST evasion case of Rs. 15 crores, emphasizing that investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed, and the petitioner had undergone significant incarceration. He also relies on Rajasthan vs. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI for the principle that bail can be granted pending trial even in economic offences once investigation is complete. Additionally, he submits that offences under the Customs Act are compoundable and triable summarily, as held in Customs vs. Sitaram Aggarwal, making bail appropriate. Revenue's Arguments: The DRI opposes the bail application, relying on a previous order of a co-ordinate bench of the High Court rejecting the bail of other accused in a similar case and a Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc.
Sections Cited
Section 108, Section 135(1)(a), Section 135(1)(b), Section 135(1)(i)(A), Section 137(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
CAV ORDER 5 27-03-2025 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the DRI.
The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with D.R.I. Case No. 32(0)/2024 arising out of DRI Patna Case No. 10/2024-2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) of the Custom Act and Section 135(1)(i)(A) of the Customs Act.
The case of the prosecution is that two persons, namely, Dharmendra Kumar and Bharat Prasad Yadav (the petitioner) were inside a swift car bearing registration No. JH09- AV-6897. The police had information that they are carrying 2/7 gold. On being asked about the said gold jewellery, Bharat Prasad Yadav said that he was carrying the gold jewellery made of smuggled gold of foreign origin which was concealed in secret cavity made inside the back of the rear seat of the said car. During inquiry, Bharat Prasad Yadav told that he was the owner of the said jewellery and did not have any legal documents regarding the said jewellery. On search, a secret cavity was found inside the back of the rear seat of the said car. Eleven packets were recovered from the said cavity which were made of polythene bag. From the said packets, assorted gold jewellery was recovered. The said packets of the gold jewellery were marked serially. Altogether, 7,979.60 gram of jewellery worth Rs. 4,66,68,897/- was recovered. Bharat Prasad Yadav told that he was going to Patna for selling the said gold jewellery to jewellery shop.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no concern in any way with the alleged recovery. He has got no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 30.06.2024. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 3/7 Supreme Court Cases 721. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held para A which reads as under: A. Customs Act, 1962 - Ss. 108, 110 and 111 - Person suspected by a Customs Officer of having committed an offence under the Act - Status of - Held, he is not an accused at that stage - He becomes an accused only when summons are issued by a competent Court/Magistrate pursuant to a complaint lodged by the competent Customs Officer - Hence, his statement recorded during an enquiry under S. 108 or during confiscation proceedings is not that of an accused within the meaning of S. 24 of the Evidence Act - Evidence Act, 1872, S. 24 - "Accused" - Meaning and scope - Words and phrases - "Accused"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance Bombay 39, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that :- "Moreover, if I have to simply accept the statement recorded under Section 108 as gospel truth and without any corroboration, I ask myself another question, as to why should anyone then go through a trial. The moment the Customs authorities recorded the statement under section 108, in which the 4/7 accused has confessed about his involvement in carrying contraband gold, the accused could be straightaway sent to jail without the trial court having recorded any evidence or conducting a trial."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to grant bail to the accused who was involved in the GST evasion to the tune of Rs.15 crores relying upon the above proposition and the relevant paragraphs is reproduced hereinbelow:- “8. In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent
would
essentially
be 5/7 documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner.
Hence, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial court, which among others, shall also include the condition to direct the petitioner to deposit his passport. Further, such other conditions shall also be imposed by the trial court to secure the presence of the petitioner to diligently participate in the trial. It is further directed that the petitioner be produced before the trial court forthwith, to ensure compliance of this order."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Apex Court has held that :- “46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has 6/7 already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI." (Emphasis supplied)
It has also been submitted that the offences under Customs Act are compoundable by the virtue of Section 137(3) and are to be tried summarily. That the Hon’ble High Court in been rejected by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.01.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 68246 of 2023. In this connection, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Appeal No. 1575 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2075 7/7 of 2007).
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Economic Offence, Patna in connection with DRI Case No. 32(0)/2024 arising out of DRI Patna Case No. 10 of 2024- 2025. lata/- Sudhanshu/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.