DHANWANT KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

(2.) Heard Mr. P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the material placed on record.

(3.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged recovery of 999 gms of one gold biscuit from the possession of the applicant is false, fabricated and planted. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that value of alleged recovered gold is Rs. 32,96,700/-, which is less than one crore of rupees, hence, the offence in view of section 135 of the Customs Act was punishable with an imprisonment upto three years, which shall not be treated as non-bailable offence. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the offence under section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable, but the court below has wrongly rejected bail prayer of the applicant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash and another vs Union of India and another (2011)14 SCC 1.