Allowed

Nandlal S/O Shri Shrichand v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CRLMB/911/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the bail application of a petitioner accused of illegally importing gold. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the court granted bail after the petitioner had already served over four months, noting the statutory punishment limits and lack of risk to trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the learned trial Judge.

Nandlal S/O Shri Shrichand Vs Union of India — Customs and Excise | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6880]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 911/2024

¶4

Nandlal S/o Shri Shrichand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bidoudi, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Police Thana Barada, District Sikar (Raj.). Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through Inspector, Customs Commissionerate, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶11

Order

¶12

09/02/2024

¶13

This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.VIII(48) AP/24/2023-24, registered at Customs Commissionerate, Jaipur for offence(s) under Sections 132 and 135 Customs Act, 1962.

¶14

Counsel for petitioner submits that the allegation against petitioner is to illegally import 6500 gm gold. It has been submitted that under the statutory provisions of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, the maximum punishment does not travel beyond 5 years. It has been submitted that after investigating, charge-sheet has been filed; Other coaccused namely Mohd. Ayub, in similar nature of offence, has already been released on bail, there are no previous antecedents

[2024:RJ-JP:6880]

[CRLMB-911/2024]

(2 of 3)

of petitioner and conclusion of trial may take a considerable time, therefore, in such circumstances, petitioner be released on bail. 3. Counsel for petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of

¶19

Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC

¶20

1678] decided on 05.12.2022 and invited attention of this Court to para No.6, which is being extracted hereunder:-

¶21

“In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner.”

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India though opposed the bail application, yet not in a position to controvert the aforesaid contentions made by counsel for petitioner.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent and perused the material available on record.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:6880]

[CRLMB-911/2024]

Having adverted to rival contentions of learned counsel for both parties and in view of facts that there are no previous criminal antecedents of petitioner for similar nature of offence; petitioner has suffered incarceration since 04.10.2023 and taking into consideration the period of punishment, provided under the statute, as also in view of the order of the Apex Court in case of Ratnambar Kaushik (Supra), as referred hereinabove, wherein the Apex Court has released the petitioner on bail after undergoing incarceration for a period of more than four months, but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release petitioner on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Nandlal S/o Shri Shrichand shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

However, in case petitioner shall repeat the same nature of offence, it will be open for respondent to move an application for cancellation of bail.

¶30

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶31

NITIN /704

Nandlal S/O Shri Shrichand v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandlal S/O Shri Shrichand v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar S/O Banwari Lal , Vs State of Rajasthan

Garima Chouhan W/O- Dinesh Singh Chouhan, D/O Krishnapal Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Saleem Khan S/O Shri Nijam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal S/O Sujaram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Ragini Patel W/O Prince Jain D/O Late Sh. Mahendra Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Son of Shri Dharmi, Vs State of Rajasthan