ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in File No. VIII (48) 227/Prev./2018 Customs Duty (Prev.), Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was apprehended on 17.07.2018 and was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value of Rupees thirty five lacs fifty thousand and twenty six. Petitioner was also found in possession of Indian currency to the tune of Rupees thirty seven thousand six hundred and fifty. Since, the total currency carried by the petitioner was less than Rupees fifty lacs, petitioner could be punished for maximum term of three years. Hence, the offence could be said to be a bailable one. Arpit Jain, son of the petitioner, was apprehended on 13.11.2017 and was found in possession of foreign currency with Indian currency value of Rupees ninety six lacs twenty four thousand and twelve. In this regard, son of the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not an accused in the said case. Son of the petitioner is not an accused in the present case. However, now the amount of currency recovered from the petitioner is sought to be exaggerated by including the foreign currency recovered from the son of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner as well as his son in their statements under Section 108 of the Act have stated that the said amount was handed over by the petitioner to his son. Petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2018. Presently petitioner is in judicial custody.

(3.) Learned counsel for Union of India has opposed the petition and has submitted that the bail petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner could be said to be carrying foreign currrency with Indian currency value of Rupees thirty five lacs fifty thousand and twenty six plus Rupees ninety lacs twenty four thousand and twelve in view of the statements made by the petitioner and his son under Section 108 of the Act. The amount carried by the petitioner and his son were liable to be clubbed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras, AIR 1970 SC 1065 , wherein, it was held as under:-