Shaik Arif vs. The Superintendent Of Customs

Facts

The petitioner, the sole accused, filed a criminal petition seeking regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition pertains to Crime No.HQPOR No.165 of 2023, registered by the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Customs Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Hyderabad. The petitioner was arrested on August 12, 2023, while attempting to pass through customs without declaring gold. Customs officials seized 2345 grams of gold, valued at Rs.1,21,34,000/-, from the petitioner. The offence is registered under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The petitioner contends that the investigation is largely complete and he was caught red-handed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning is based on the fact that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is 7 years, and it appears that most of the investigation has been completed. The Court also took into account that the petitioner was caught red-handed by the customs officials at the airport. Consequently, the criminal petition was allowed. The operative directions included the petitioner executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for a like sum, appearing before the concerned Station House Officer every Monday for eight weeks or until the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier, and abiding by other conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, considering the value of the seized gold and the stage of investigation? The petitioner argued that the maximum punishment for the offence is 7 years and that the majority of the investigation has been completed. The petitioner also highlighted that he was apprehended red-handed by customs officials at the airport, suggesting a strong case for bail. The respondent-State, represented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, did not present any specific arguments against the bail application as recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or State beyond their representation.