In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, High Court of Allahabad allowed bail to Akash Jha accused of smuggling gold under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing public interest and procedural fairness while leaving final facts to the trial court.
Release of applicant Akash Jha on bail in furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235408
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50333 of 2023
Applicant :- Akash Jha Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Singh,Jai Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Agarawal
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Rejoinder affidavit is filed by learned senior counsel for the applicant and it is taken on record.
Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Jai Prakash and Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, Shri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for Department of Revenue Intelligence and Shri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Akash Jha , under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case No. 01 of 2023 for offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i)(A) of Customs Act, 1962, after rejection of bail of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Meerut vide order dated 25.10.2023 during the pendency of the trial.
As per the allegation of complaint case, the Intelligence Bureau on evening of 11.09.2023 at about 4:30 PM, some officials of Department of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the vehicle bearing No. MP 07 CG 9015, when the said car was coming towards Jewar Toll Plaza via Yamuna Expressway, in which the applicant and one other co-accused person were apprehended with gold bar weighing 1998 grams and jewellery weighing about 116 grams along with two receipts and seized them from the cavity of the Kia Seltos car.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is employee of Mohit Jewels whose proprietor is Mohit Agrawal, son of co-accused Umesh Agrawal, as recorded in the statement of the
applicant. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that the gold bar and ornaments were alleged to have been recovered along with the two receipts which was given by Kalash Computerised Tunch Centre, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which is not smuggled gold.
It is further submitted that the matter falls within the parameters of Compoundable category as provided under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant is a bonafide owner of the said gold and the ornaments, which have been seized by the custom department.
It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 13.09.2023, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. The aforesaid offence is triable by the Magistrate and maximum punishment is 7 years. Learned senior counsel further relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
Per contra , learned counsel for the Department of Revenue Intelligence has supported the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut, and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the present gold which has been seized by the department is illegally smuggled gold from Dubai, and the applicant removed the evidence of foreign origin and this is a case of prohibited gold and further submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the complaint of two months cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the Department of Revenue of Intelligence relied upon of judgements of Supreme Court in Union of Indian Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 254, Union of India Vs. Sapna Jain and Others (2021) 2 SCC 782 and Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation MANU/SC/0487/2013.
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Akash Jha, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 12.12.2023 Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in the maintenance of public faith.
Whether the applicant is a fit case for release on bail despite serious nature of accusation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnotherRelied on¶13
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 · Who else cites this
Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc.Relied on¶15
Union of Indian Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc. AIR 2009 Supreme Court 254 · Who else cites this
Union of India Vs. Sapna Jain and OthersRelied on¶15
Union of India Vs. Sapna Jain and Others (2021) 2 SCC 782 · Who else cites this
Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶15
Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation MANU/SC/0487/2013
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ BaliayRelied on¶17
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. v. Public ProsecutorRelied on¶17
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.Relied on¶17
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr.Relied on¶17
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.Relied on¶17
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Akash Jha
Union of India
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
