CHANDAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has been argued that in this case recovery of 271 ingots of Silver weighing 324 K.G. has been made from the Falsa in front of the house of the accused-petitioner No. 2 Sawai Ram and the same was placed 4' deep at the Falsa at the instance of Chandan Singh, Hanuwant Singh and Kurda Ram. The submissions have been made that in this case no single accused-petitioner can be held to be liable for the exclusive possession. Mr. Bajwa has also argued that in this case the maximum punishment is three years imprisonment only and the offence is not cognizable. Mr. Balwada on the other hand has argued that on the basis of provisions of Sec. 123, the burden of proof lies on the accused persons because the total quantity of Silver recovered is 324 Kg., from their possession and therefore, the accused-petitioners are liable to be punished for a period of 7 years. Mr. Balwada has also submitted that two of the accused-persons namely Hanuwant Singh and Kurda Ram are absconding and so far as Chandan Singh is concerned, it has been submitted that he has also been penalised twice by the Custom Authority. The submission of Mr. Balwada for Sawairam is that he is the person who has allowed smuggled goods to be concealed and therefore the accused-petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail. Mr. Bajwa has submitted that Chandan Singh was never prosecuted under the provisions of the Customs Act and has only been penalised for fine of Rs. 100/200 for having been seen near the Border Area. Mr. Bajwa has cited before me 1990 (1) Crimes, p. 481 and has submitted that the trial in this case is likely to take long time as the complainant has to be filed by the Custom Authority before the concerned Magistrate and incident is dated 13/3/92, since then the accused-petitioners are in jail and at present they are in judicial custody. He has also submitted that for all intent and purposes the investigation is over and the very fact that both the accused-petitioners are now in judicial custody goes to show that they are no more required for the purposes of investigation. Mr. Balwada has submitted that in the case of 1990 (1) Crimes, p. 481 the benefit of Sec. 437 was given. The judgment shows that was not the only ground that was considered by the Court. The Court considered that in this case the petitioner is no more required for the purposes of investigation and that no useful purpose would have been served by sending the petitioner in jail and in this view of the case the application for anticipatory bail u/s 438, Crimial P.C. was accepted in favour of the petitioner. In the instant case there is dispute as to whether the offence is to be treated as punishable with three years imprisonment or seven years imprisonment but the fact remains that the petitioners are no more required for the investigation purposes and it appeals to the reason that when the goods have already been recovered and the investigation is over, the accused-petitioners are in judicial custody, no useful purposes would be served to keep the petitioner in jail.

(2.) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to accept this bail application u/s 439, Crimial P.C. and it is directed that the accused-petitioners Chandan Singh S/o Birdhi Singh and Sawai Ram S/o Jetha Ram be released on bail provided each one of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000.00 (Rs. Twenty Thousand) alongwith two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (Ten Thousand) each to the satisfaction of Special Magistrate, Economic Offences, Jaipur to appear before that Court whenever called upon to do so and accused-petitioners shall make themselves available to the Custom Authorities as and when required. Bail granted.