Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Samad Siddiqui @ Babar vs Union Of India Thru. Mr. Santosh Kumar ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18121
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 124 of 2025
Applicant :- Mohd. Samad Siddiqui @ Babar
Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Applicant :- Pal Singh Yadav,Ashish Kumar Singh,Pal Singh Yadav,Prathama Singh,Purnendu Chakravarty
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey,S M Singh Royekwar
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S.M.Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow.
2. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to DRI Case No.18 of 2024, Complainant Case No.106848 of 2024, under Sections 135(1)(i)A of the Custom Act, 1986 read with Section 210/223 BNS, 2023, P.S. DRI Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that as per recovery memo, raw silver and certain cash were recovered from a raid upon the residence of applicant who is in fact a jeweler.
4. Learned counsel has adverted to Section 135 of Customs Act 1962 to submit that it is only in case any person is found to be violating the provisions thereof that action may be taken under the Act. It is submitted that even otherwise the punishment indicated in the aforesaid section extends to a maximum period of seven years with fine and since in the present case, the value of goods recovered from the house of applicant did not exceed Rupees One Crore, the imprisonment would be for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both. He has also adverted to Section 137 of the Act of 1962 to submit that the offence indicated under the Chapter can be compounded by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on payment by the person accused of the offence.
5. It is therefore submitted that when the offence is compoundable under Section 137 of the Act, there was no occasion for the Directorate to have proceeded against the applicant in terms of Section 135 of the Customs Act. He has adverted to judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Tufial versus Union of India & Anr. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57731 of 2022 to submit that the term 'any person' indicated in Section 135 of the Act pertains to recovery made only from an individual and not collectively from other recoveries made from other persons. He has also adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Another (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021) dated 07.10.2021 and Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 to submit that his case would be covered by the aforesaid judgment.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application with the submission that the aspect of compounding is completely different from the aspect of prosecution and in the present case when recovery of unaccounted silver and currency notes is clearly made out.
7. He also submits that the term 'any person' indicated in Section 135 of the Act is not to be read in isolation but in terms of language employed in Section 135 (i)(b) of the Act. He therefore submits that the case of Mohd. Tufial (supra) would not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances particularly in view of provisions of General Clauses Act which indicate singular to be plural as well. He also submits that the applicant even otherwise has not been able to account for the recovery which was affected from his house.
8. It is also submitted that recovery effected from applicant in fact exceeds Rupees One Crore since the raid upon residence of applicant was on the basis of information supplied from co-accused from whose recovery was affected.
9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, without adverting upon the submissions of learned counsel for parties and perusal of provisions of Section 135 of the Custom Act, 1962, the punishment indicated therein clearly indicates imprisonment for a maximum period which may extend to seven years with fine. The aspect of recovery effected from applicant coming within or exceeding Rupees One Crore would be subject matter of trial and evidence. This Court at this stage would not make any comment thereupon.
10. However in view of the fact that maximum imprisonment prescribed is only extended upto seven years, liberty is granted to applicant to apply for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court expeditiously in accordance with judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Satender Kumar Antil and Arnesh Kumar (supra).
11. With the aforesaid directions, the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.4.2025
Subodh/-
