Delhi High Court
Subhash Sachdeva vs Customs on 7 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 IIIAD Delhi 608, 2001 CriLJ 2186, 90 (2001) DLT 525, 2001 (58) DRJ 108, 2001 (75) ECC 42
Author: R Chopra
Bench: R Chopra
ORDER
R.C. Chopra, J.
1.This order shall dispose of petitioner's application for bail under Section 439 of the Code Criminal Procedure.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. A complaint under Section 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been filed against the petitioner on the allegations that on 16.12.2000, he arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from Hongkong.. He was intercepted and from his possession, 11,950 pieces of watch movements and 8 mobile phones of Panasonic were recovered. He could not produce any evidence to show that these items were being imported legitimately. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. After necessary investigations, a complaint was filed against him in the Court of A.C.M.M., New Delhi. According to the complainant, the value of the watch movements was about Rs.4,78,000/- and of the mobile phones about Rs.64,000/-.
4. Pleading for grant of bail, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners has already been in custody for over two and a half months, he was not a dealer in smuggled goods, he was not a previous offender and at the most, he was a petty carrier, who was induced to indulge in this activity on the lure of petty benefit and a visit to foreign county. Learned counsel for the respondents/complainant, on the other hand, submits that since the petitioner was smuggling watch movements, he is covered by Section 123(2) of the Customs Act and may be punished to a term up to 7 years. He submits that the petitioner, being a carrier of smuggled goods, should be sternly dealt with.
5. The complaint and the other material on record prima facie suggests that the petitioner is not a regular carrier of smuggled goods. Prior to his apprehension on the date of the incident, he had gone out of India only once in the year 1994. It is nt the case of the prosecution that during his earlier visit in 1994, he was involved in any unlawful activity. From the statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, it appears that he was lured into the commission of this offence by promising him a free journey to Hongkong. He is not a dealer in watches or mobile phones. He is in custody for the last over two and a half months. The investigations against him have already been completed and a complaint has already been filed against him. There appears to be no apprehension that if released on bail, he would again indulge in a similar activity or would not be available for facing trial. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that there are good and sufficient grounds for allowing his application for bail.
6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the condition that till disposal of the criminal complaint against him pending before the trial Court, he shall not leave India without permission of the Court and in case, he is found indulging in any similar offence during said period his bail shall be cancelled.
7. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial Court.
