Raj Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Principal Commissioner Customs, C.R. Building, B.C. Patel Path, Patn

Facts

The petitioner, Raj Kumar, apprehends arrest in a case registered for offences under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The prosecution alleges that three persons were apprehended with smuggled gold weighing 1982.340 grams from Bangladesh, and the petitioner's name emerged during the investigation based on the confessional statement of a co-accused. The petitioner claims he is not named in the FIR and is the owner of M/S R.K. Traders, a GST-registered firm. He asserts that the seized gold biscuits, valued at Rs. 36,56,953/-, were refined from validly purchased gold jewellery, evidenced by a tax invoice from a Coimbatore firm. The petitioner had approached the Joint Commissioner Customs, Patna, for the release of the seized gold.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the submissions made by both parties, noting that there was no allegation of tampering with evidence, a charge-sheet had already been submitted, and cognizance had been taken. Additionally, the petitioner claimed a clean antecedent. Based on these factors, the Court ordered that the petitioner be enlarged on bail upon his arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties. The Court also imposed conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring the petitioner to cooperate in the trial, be physically present as directed, and not tamper with evidence or witnesses. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the gold biscuits is illegal and improper, considering the petitioner's claim of valid purchase and the absence of evidence of foreign origin, thereby turning on Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the seized gold biscuits are not of foreign origin and were validly purchased, supported by a tax invoice. He argues that the DRI authorities acted arbitrarily and without proper evidence, making the seizure illegal. He further submits that the value of the seized goods is less than Rs. 1 crore, making the offence bailable under the Customs Act. The petitioner also argues that there are no restrictions on transporting primary gold within India since the abolition of the Gold Control Act, 1968, and that the seizure itself is improper. He points to the fact that a charge-sheet has been submitted and that another co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail. Revenue's arguments: The opposite parties (Revenue) vehemently opposed the bail application.