Allowed

Mohd. Sadique v. Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024BAIL/7332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Mohd. Sadique in a case involving alleged smuggling under the Customs Act. The court found the evidence against him relied on statements recorded in custody and mere phone contact with a co-accused, deeming it insufficient to deny bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties in like amount.

Mohd. Sadique vs Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs… — Customs and Excise | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53114

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7332 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Sadique Opposite Party :- Union Of India Deptt. Of Air Customs Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh,Raghvendra P. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dipak Seth,Kuldeepak Nag (K.D.Nag)

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.D. Nag, learned for the respondent-Union of India.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.01/2024-2025, under Section 135 of the Custom Act, 1962, Police Station Custom Airport, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per the prosecution, it is stated that 35 persons were intercepted by the Custom Officers at the arrival Hall of the Lucknow Airport. All the said persons alighted from Flight No.6E-1424 on 01.04.2024 an it was suspected that they were carrying consignment of prohibited items.

¶9

Upon interception of the baggage of the said persons it revealed that they were carrying huge quantity of cigarette and gold was recovered from the possession of Mohd. Kasif valued at Rs.5,88,772/-. It is also the case of the prosecution that 29 persons fled during the time the statement of six other coaccused was being recorded.

¶10

The case set up against the applicant is that one of the person, who had alighted from the flight namely Amir Ahmad had tried to contact the applicant several times between 31.03.2024 to 02.04.2024 on his phone. On the basis of aforesaid material, the applicant was apprehended at the Ahmedabad Airport on 15.06.2024. The applicant was examined and his statement was recorded on 15 and 16.06.2024.

¶11

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that apparently there is no material against the applicant except that one of the co-accused namely Amir Ahmad attempted to contact

¶12

the applicant several times between 31.03.2024 to 02.04.2024 from his mobile phone. However, no recovery has been made from the applicant.

¶13

It is also not the case of the prosecution that the applicant was travelling in Flight No.6E-1424. It is also not disputed by the prosecution that it is merely on the statement of the other coaccused and the statement of the applicant which was recorded while the applicant was in custody, which is being used against the applicant to oppose the bail application.

¶14

It is also urged that the applicant has been falsely framed merely on the incriminating evidence of the other co-accused and the statement of the applicant which has been recorded while he was in custody and from that very date i.e. 16.06.2024, the applicant has been in jail. In such circumstances, it is urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Shri K.D. Nag, learned counsel for the prosecution submits that from the statement of the applicant which was recorded, a copy of which has been brought on record along with supplementary counter affidavit dated 11.07.2024, it would indicate that the applicant admitted that he was involved in smuggling of prohibited items including gold and used to bring it from Dubai. He also named the persons who were involved along with the applicant which also includes the names of persons who were apprehended at the Lucknow Airport on 01.04.2024 and who had alighted from Flight No.6E-1424.

¶16

It has also been pointed that from a perusal of the statement as aforesaid, it would indicate that the applicant was the kingpin of this entire racket which was being operated for smuggling of prohibited items in the country.

¶17

The applicant was responsible for facilitating the travel and the smuggling of goods and in such circumstances where only a few out of 35 persons who had alighted have been apprehended and the others are free, hence, it is necessary that the bail application of the applicant be rejected otherwise it would hamper further investigation.

¶18

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Apparently, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, it is not disputed that he was not travelling by Flight No.6E-1424 on 01.04.2024. It is also not disputed that amongst the baggage which was detained at the Lucknow Airport, none belonged to the applicant nor it could be traced to the applicant. The only incriminating material is the statement of the applicant which was recorded while he was in

¶19

custody and the other circumstance is the fact that one of the other co-accused had attempted to contact the applicant on his WhatsApp Mobile a number of times between 31.03.2024 to 02.04.2024.

¶20

In the aforesaid circumstances, neither the statement which is sought to be used against the applicant at this stage and the mere coincidence of one of the co-accused trying to contact the applicant does give rise to any circumstance which may categorically point towards the applicant. Nevertheless the same is yet to be tested in trial and only if the aforesaid allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt can the applicant. It is not disputed that the applicant is required for any custodial interrogation as his statement has been recorded. Moreover, it is also not disputed that the applicant is at flight risk or he is capable of tampering the evidence or influence any witness.

¶21

In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Let the applicant Mohd. Sadique involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶23

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶24

(i) 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.

¶25

(ii) 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.

¶26

(iii) 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.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶28

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶29

(v) The applicant shall seek permission of the Court concerned before leaving the country.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶31

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Rakesh/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sadique v. Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sadique v. Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Shanker and Others Vs Mohd. Ibrahim and Others

Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Jai Prakash Singh @ Jai Prakash and Another Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Abha Nagar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planing Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ambika Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Putti Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao and 4 Others