Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court allowed the bail application of an individual accused under the Customs Act, 1962 in a gold smuggling case. The Court held that continued detention was unjustified in the absence of prima facie material establishing the petitioner’s conscious involvement in smuggling activities. It emphasized that mere possession of smuggled gold or the petitioner’s presence in proximity to the co-accused does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The Court further relied on the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 to grant bail.
Facts
The petitioner was arrested based on statements made by a co-accused who was found carrying 16 gold bars concealed in his socks at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) registered a case under the Customs Act, alleging a conspiracy to smuggle gold into India. The co-accused named the petitioner as the person who received the gold bars and concealed them in a tea flask for further movement.
Though no gold was recovered directly from the petitioner, he was arrested based on the confessional statements of the co-accused and his alleged presence in the vehicle. He had been in custody for 354 days without trial. The petitioner’s bail application was rejected earlier, following which he renewed his request before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the statements of co-accused without independent corroboration are sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Section 135 of the Customs Act?
- Whether the continued detention of the petitioner violated his fundamental rights under Article 21?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated based solely on the uncorroborated confession of a co-accused, which under Section 108 of the Customs Act lacks evidentiary value in the absence of supporting material. No gold was recovered from his possession. He emphasized that he had no criminal antecedents and had already suffered incarceration for almost a year. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in various Supreme Court decisions to assert that bail should be the rule, and jail an exception, particularly where trial is likely to be delayed.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution, represented by the DRI, opposed the bail by stating that the petitioner was part of a larger organized network for gold smuggling. The prosecution contended that the petitioner facilitated the concealment of smuggled gold and his custodial interrogation might still be necessary. It was further urged that economic offences like smuggling have grave implications on national security and revenue, and bail should be denied considering the seriousness of the allegations.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 135 of the Customs Act, which penalizes acts of smuggling, including abetment and conspiracy. It observed that conviction under this section requires a demonstration of “mens rea” or conscious knowledge. The Court drew a distinction between mere possession or proximity to smuggled goods and active participation in a conspiracy.
The Court also analyzed the evidentiary value of confessions recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. While such statements are admissible, the Court noted that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless substantially corroborated.
Further, the Court relied on constitutional principles laid down under Article 21 and jurisprudence governing bail. In particular, the Court cited that personal liberty cannot be curtailed indefinitely without trial, especially in cases where the evidence does not reveal a direct link.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the following judgments:
- Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 – The Supreme Court held that confessional statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible only when voluntarily made and supported by other evidence. The Calcutta High Court applied this to highlight the need for corroboration of statements against co-accused.
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 – The Court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that the gravity of the offence alone is not sufficient to deny bail when the trial is unlikely to commence soon.
- Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427 – The Supreme Court emphasized that “the writ of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution” and pre-trial incarceration must be justified with compelling reasons.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that although the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are technically admissible, they cannot be the sole basis to deny bail without independent corroboration. The petitioner had not been found in physical possession of smuggled gold. There was no recovery from him or his premises.
Further, the Court observed that the trial had not commenced, and the petitioner had been in custody for nearly a year. No progress was made toward framing of charges or examination of witnesses. Emphasizing on the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, the Court held:
“Bail is the rule and jail is an exception, especially when no recovery has been made from the accused and the investigation is complete.”
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court allowed the petitioner’s bail application, holding that his continued detention was not justified in the absence of cogent material demonstrating his involvement in smuggling. The Court ordered his release on bail with conditions, including furnishing of bail bonds, surrender of passport, and regular attendance before the trial court.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the jurisprudential principle that bail should not be denied solely due to the seriousness of allegations. Courts must ensure that unsubstantiated confessions of co-accused are not used to prolong detention. The case strengthens the protection of personal liberty, particularly in cases where direct recovery or evidence is lacking, and delays in trial proceedings become punitive.
Case Law Summary
- Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari: Statements under Section 108 need corroboration.
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI: Bail is not to be denied just due to seriousness of charges.
- Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra: Protection of liberty paramount; pre-trial detention must be exceptional.
FAQs
Q1. Can statements under the Customs Act alone justify denial of bail?
No. As per this judgment, a co-accused’s statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act must be corroborated with other independent evidence to justify prolonged detention.
Q2. What if no smuggled goods are recovered from the accused?
The absence of recovery significantly weakens the prosecution’s case and weighs in favour of bail, as reaffirmed by this judgment.
Q3. Does economic offence automatically mean no bail?
No. While serious, economic offences do not automatically justify denial of bail. Courts must consider individual facts, evidence, and delay in trial.
