MADHUR GARG Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Sec. 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail who is apprehending his arrest in relation to Crime No.21/2021, registered at Police Station Commissioner of Customs, District Indore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Ss. 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i)(A) of Customs Act.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that, respondent No. 2 Commissioner of Customs has filed a complaint against the applicant and co-accused persons under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Indore stating that the applicant is the mastermind behind the smuggling of 5 Kgs of gold and brought from Mumbai by vehicle bearing Regsitration No. MP04 CS 1620 which was registered in the name of his brother Shri Gourav Garg. It is alleged that the applicant 5 kgs gold was seized from Harnam Singh Dangi, Suraj Sharma and Rajkumar sitting in the car bearing registration No. MP04 CS 1620.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime at the instance of the complainant. It is also submitted that during the investigation of the vehicle, Harnam Singh Dangi, Suraj Sharma, Rajkumar sitting in the car bearing registration No. MP04 CS 1620 and carrying 5 kg foreign origin gold bars in their vehicle. Thereafter, during interrogation, it was alleged that the applicant and his brother had given cash of Rs.2,20,50,000.00 to Harnam Singh Dangi to collect. He has further submitted that the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons under Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C. The power of arrest vesting the officers of Customs under Sec. 104 of the Customs Act, cannot be exercised after the Court has taken cognizance of the offene punishable under Sec. 135 of Customs Act. Investigation is over and the gold in question has already been confiscated and in this regard, an appeal is still pending before the Appellate Authority. The offence is economic and the applicant is liable to be given the benefit of [Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, [(2014) 8 SCC 273], Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 10 SCR 351 and V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by Deputy Director and Others reported in (2024) 3 SCC 51. In the aforesaid judgment, it has clearly been mentioned that any offence which is triable by Magistrate and in which punishment of less than seven years is given and when during the invetigation, the prosecution does not seek custody of the accused, after the Court has taken cognizance, there is no need to arrest.