Allahabad High Court
Zaid Khan vs Union Of India Thru. Directotate ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38286
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11368 of 2024
Applicant :- Zaid Khan
Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Directorate Revenue Intelligence Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Misra,Ashish Kumar Singh,Pal Singh Yadav,Prathama Singh,Purnendu Chakravarty,Wakeel Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey,S M Singh Royekwar
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S M Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for DRI and perused the record.
It is alleged in the prosecution case that on a specific intelligence that the accused applicant is carrying foreign origin gold which had been smuggled into India from Dubai and further the said gold was being carried from Delhi to Lucknow by the applicant who was travelling in a bus No.BR 28 P 9688. On 1.9.2024, a team of DRI officers along with two independent witnesses intercepted the bus near UPSHA Toll Plaza towards towards Agara Lucknow Expressway at about 5.00a.m. and from the applicant, two gold bars of foreign origin weighing 2000 grams, the market value whereof is Rs.1,48,00,000/-, were recovered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under section 135 of the Customs Act, in case the market value of any goods exceeds one crore of rupees, the maximum punishment is upto seven years. In the complaint which was filed on 31.12.2024 whereas the arrest was made on 2.9.2024, it has been admitted by the prosecution that Mohd. Samad Siddiqui alias Babar who was the alleged mastermind and operating a well organised syndicate and on whose instructions, the applicant and other co-accused persons were carrying foreign original smuggled goods and its sale proceeds were being taken on his direction has been granted bail by the court below on the same day vide order dated 9.4.2025.
It is submitted that in the present case adjudication proceedings under section 124 Customs Act are going on. It will take some time. The complaint has been filed against five accused persons, i.e. the present applicant, Mohd. Amir, Mohd. Rizwan Siddiqui, Zeeshan Ali Khan and Mohd. Sakir Khan. No complaint has been filed against Samad Siddiqui alias Babar.
It is submitted that it will be a joint trial in view of judgment of Apex Xourt in Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others [2013 CRI L.J. 754 and therefore, adjudication proceedings will take some time and the complaint regarding the main master mind is yet to be filed which will further delay the proceedings. No useful purpose will be served in keeping the applicant behind bars. The fact whether the goods were of foreign origin or Indian origin will be seen during the course of trial.
It is lastly submitted that the complaint case is malicious as although while arresting the accused, two independent witnesses are said to have been the witness of recovery of two bars of gold, however, none of the independent witnesses has been placed in the list of witnesses in the complaint case which raises serious doubt on the prosecution story. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and is in jail since 2.9.2024.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for D.R.I., though opposed bail, however, he could not deny that Mohammad Samad Siddiqui was the mastermind. He also could not give any justification as to why the independent witnesses have not been made witnesses in the complaint case by the prosecution.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the alleged two independent witnesses who were part of search and seizure proceedings have not been made witnesses in the prosecution case, the main accused Samad Siddiqui has been granted bail by the court below and the maximum punishment is upto seven years, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 2.9.2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Zaid Khan, involved in Case Crime No.18 of 2024 under section 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i)(A) of Custom Act, P.S. DRI Lucknow Zonal Unit, district Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The applicant will not leave the country without permission of the court.
(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Observation(s) made herein above shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on merit of the case.
Order Date :- 7.7.2025
kkb/
