MOHAMMAD NAZIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the accused -applicant submits that the offence, if it is taken separately, is bailable however, the prosecution has clubbed many past alleged incidences though no recovery of gold was made in the past from the petitioners. In view of above, petitioners are entitled for the bail. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the bail application. It is submitted that this Court has already decided the issue raised by the counsel for the petitioners. It was in the case of Najibullah & Anr. v/s. Union of India in S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 13466/2014, decided on 5 -1 -2015. The aforesaid order has not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 1288/2015. The other judgment is in the case of Smt. Amal Mubarak Salim Al Reiyami v/s. Union of India & Ors. in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1870/2015 & two others decided on 26 -3 -2015 [ : 2015 (321) E.L.T. 590 (Raj.)]. There, clubbing of past incidences of bringing gold has been allowed to measure the total weight and value and even recovery of gold from co -accused and adding it to find out total quality has been held to be valid. In view of above, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

(2.) I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and find that the issue raised by the counsel for the accused -applicant has already been decided by the co -ordinate Bench in the case supra. The clubbing of total quantity of gold is permitted to find out whether the offence is bailable or non -bailable. If the total value, after clubbing, comes to more than Rs. 1 crore, it does not remain the bailable offence. Thus, I am unable to accept this bail application. Accordingly, it is dismissed.