ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent in Crl. M.P. No. 3107/87, dated 9-9-1987 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras and commit the respondent to custody. Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the counter affidavit filed therewith and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Rajamanickam, Central Government Prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner and of Mr. G. Padmanabhan, Advocate for the 1st Respondent, the Court made the following order:-

(2.) FACTS Briefly are:- On 13-8-1987 the first respondent alighted at the Madras Airport from Singapore flight and on search it was found that in a cloth belt tied around his waist 33 gold bars, totally wighing 330 tolas, valued at Rs. 11, 59, 116/- were kept concealed and the same were seized under a mahazar. There was no valid import permit from the Reserve Bank of India for the above gold nor was the gold declared to the Customs at any stage. The first respondent, when questioned by the Customs Officer, gave a voluntary statement admitting the fact that he had concealed the above gold on his body without any valid import permit. A case was registered against the respondent for an offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and is being investigated into by the petitioner. The first respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. At that stage, the first respondent filed Crl. M.P. No. 3107 of 1987 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras seeking bail. The petitioner filed a counter and objected to the grant of bail on the ground, that the respondent was a Malaysian National, holding a Malaysian passport, having no roots in India and did not have any employment status or length of residence in the community in India and, since the gold was found actually on his person, concealed and he himself had given a voluntary statement, which statement he had not chosen to retract, he was likely to abscond in view of the fact that the offence, which he had committed was one which called for a minimum imprisonment of one year.

(3.) THIRU P. Rajamanickam, Standing Counsel for Customs, contended that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting bail to the 1st Respondent, is in violation of well established principles relating to grant of bail laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions and consequently, the order suffer from serious infirmities and interests of justice require that the order should be set aside. Learned Counsel relied on certain decisions, which I shall refer to later.