ARPIT JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Arpit Jain with the prayer that respondent Union of India be directed by issuance of writ of habeas corpus to release him from illegal detention and custody on such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and proper in respect of Case No.F.No.VIII(48) AP/12/2017 registered by the Customs Department, Jaipur, pertaining to Criminal Complaint No.48/2017 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) , Jaipur Metropolitan, in which cognizance has been taken vide order dated 15.01.2018.

(2.) Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is in jail in a matter where cognizance against him has been taken for bailable offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act of 1962') . The cognizance has been taken by the court only for bailable offence. Section 132 of the Act of 1962 provides for punishment, which may extend to two years and that is a bailable offence. So far as Section 135 of the Act of 1962 is concerned, the penalty provided therein is depended on the value of the goods and the tax evaded, which would determine whether it is bailable or not. If the market value of the goods exceeds one crore of rupees or the duty evaded or attempted to be evaded exceeds fifty lakhs rupees, it is non-bailable otherwise it is bailable.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner was allegedly taken into custody by the Customs Department at Jaipur Airport at around 3:30 AM on 12.11.2017. He was not immediately presented before the Court of the concerned Magistrate. However, on 111.2017 at 2:00 pm the petitioner was presented by one Mr. Prem Raj Jogwal, Inspector (Customs) Airport Jaipur, before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, who remanded the petitioner in judicial custody. While the petitioner was in custody on 12.11.2017, he was beaten and subjected to assault. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Act of 1962 under duress and coercion.