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

Facts

The petitioners, Ashish Raj, Rajan Kumar Soni, and Vishal Kumar, are in custody in connection with a case registered for alleged violations of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) apprehended them at Gaya Railway Station, alleging they were carrying smuggled gold weighing 1982.340 grams, valued at Rs. 1,03,45,832/-, from Bangladesh into India. The petitioners claim innocence, stating they were carrying gold jewelry purchased from registered firms, supported by tax invoices and a debit note for job work for refining damaged jewelry. They contend that the individual value of gold recovered from each petitioner was less than Rs. One Crore, making the offense bailable, and that the DRI illegally clubbed separate recoveries to inflate the total value and make the offense non-bailable. They have been in custody since July 1, 2022, and claim no criminal antecedents.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioners. The primary reasoning for granting bail was based on the fact that the recovery of gold Biscuits/Bullions from the individual possession of each petitioner was less than Rs. One Crore. This finding directly addresses the petitioners' argument that the offense, when considered individually, would be bailable. The Court also took into account the period the petitioners had already spent in custody. While the DRI argued that the total value of seized gold exceeded Rs. One Crore and that the petitioners admitted guilt, the Court appears to have given significant weight to the individual value of the recovery and the duration of pre-trial detention. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality of the seizure within India or the clubbing of recoveries as distinct legal issues for the purpose of granting bail, but the focus on individual recovery value suggests a consideration of the petitioners' arguments regarding the bailable nature of their individual alleged offenses. The operative direction was to release the petitioners on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the alleged recovery of gold Biscuits/Bullions from the individual possession of each petitioner, valued at less than Rs. One Crore, renders the offense bailable under the Customs Act, 1962, despite the total value of the seized gold exceeding Rs. One Crore. 2. Whether the clubbing of recoveries from three different individuals into a single seizure list, and subsequently into one case, was a deliberate attempt by the DRI to make the offense non-bailable. 3. Whether the seizure of gold at Gaya, within Indian territory, is illegal and improper, given that there are no restrictions on transporting primary gold within the country since the abolition of the Gold Control Act, 1968. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they are innocent and falsely implicated. They presented documents (tax invoices, debit note) to show the gold was refined from validly purchased jewelry. They contended that the individual value of gold recovered from each petitioner was less than Rs. One Crore, making the offense bailable. They further argued that the DRI illegally clubbed separate recoveries to inflate the total value and create a non-bailable offense. They also asserted that the seizure within India was illegal as there are no restrictions on intra-country gold transport. Revenue's Arguments: The DRI and Customs Department opposed the bail plea, stating the petitioners admitted possession of smuggled gold and disclosed their involvement in smuggling. They claimed the gold was marked with refineries from Dubai (UAE) and that the documents produced by the petitioners were not found to be genuine. They also presented CDR analysis suggesting the petitioners' presence in Bihar on a specific date contradicted their claims.