Mrs. Shaik Mohammed Sadiq vs. The Superintendent Of Customs, (Preventive) Customs Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, the sole accused, filed a Criminal Petition seeking regular bail. The petitioner was arrested on August 12, 2023, while attempting to pass through customs without declaring gold. Customs officials seized 1793.50 grams of gold, valued at Rs. 1,08,81,165/-, from the petitioner. The registration of the case was under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The petitioner was produced before the Court following his arrest. The judgment notes that the maximum punishment for the offense is seven years and that most of the investigation appears to be complete, with the petitioner having been caught red-handed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act is seven years. Furthermore, the judgment noted that a significant portion of the investigation appeared to be complete. The petitioner was caught red-handed by customs officials at the airport, which was a key factor in the decision. Consequently, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to specific conditions. These conditions included 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. The criminal petition was accordingly allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act, the value of the seized gold, and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued for regular bail, highlighting that the maximum punishment is seven years, most of the investigation is complete, and the petitioner was apprehended red-handed. The petitioner relied on the general principles for granting bail in economic offenses where investigation is substantially complete. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, did not present any specific arguments against the grant of bail in the judgment. The judgment states that the court perused the record and heard the counsel for both sides.