Back
DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Parag Dhirajlal Dave – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.
2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with DRI File Number: DRI/AZU/SRU/B/INV-11 of 2023 registered with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat Unit, for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1) (i)(a) and 135(1)(i)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. J. M. Panchal assisted by learned advocate Ms. Shweta Lodha for learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat for the applicant submits that secret information was received on 07.07.2023 by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) that four persons viz. Shri Uvesh Imtiyaz Shaikh, Shri Mohamed Sakib Bustak Ahmad Atashbajiwal, Shri Yasir Shaikh and Smt Marufabanu Yasir Shaikh traveling via Air India Express flight from Sharjah are attempting to smuggle gold into India with the help of official at Surat Airport. Therefore, the officers examined their cabin and check-in baggage by drawing Panchnama. During the pa
The court's decision emphasized the exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the nature of the allegations and the lack of recovery or discovery at the instance of the applicant.
The court ruled that the statutory provisions under the Customs Act render the offence non-bailable due to the substantial value of contraband, emphasizing public interest and evidence integrity.
The court held that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is bailable when the value of the goods is below Rs. 1 Crore and classified as restricted rather than prohibited.
The court held that the offence under the Customs Act is bailable as the value of gold in individual possession is below Rs. 1 Crore, classifying the goods as restricted rather than prohibited.
Section 135 of Customs Act, 1952 reads as evasion of duty or prohibitions.
Smuggling of gold, even with intent to threaten economic security, does not constitute a terrorist act under Section 15(1)(a)(iiia) of the UA(P)A.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
