SITA RAM AGGARWAL Vs. CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the application for regular bail under Section 434, submitted that the two allegations made against the petitioner are that offences have been committed under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits straightaway that Section 132 is a bailable offence and it is only on account of the allegation that an offence under Section 135(1 )(a) has been committed that he is before this Court. He further pointed out that by a subsequent amendment which came into effect in 2004, Sub-Section 3 has been added to Section 137 whereby it is now provided that-

(2.) Thus, according to him, even if an offence under Section 135(l)(a) is made out, it would still be compoundable under Section 137(3) ot the said Act and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, specially when bail is rule and the jail is the exception. He further submitted that on going through the complaint itself, no offence under Section 135(1)(a) would be made out.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing lor the Customs Department submitted that this was a clear case in which the ingredients of Section 135(l)(a) were made out and keeping in mind the seriousness of the offence and the allegations, bail should not be granted, lie drew my attention to the complaint and several paragraphs therein, particularly, he drew my attention to paragraphs 3(cc) & 3(cc)(iii) and (iv) which read as under: "(3(cc) From the perusal of various Bank statements of both these firms and statements dated 24.7.2004 of the accused and Rajesh Agarwal dated 24.7.2004 and various statements of the Bank recorded on 30.7.2004, the following facts came to surface: