Honble TIBREWAL, J. — Both these bail applications may be disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same criminal case. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, some relevant facts may be stated.

(2). On December 29, 1993 at about 5.15 p.m. some persons were seen in suspicious circumstances at Indo-Pak border by the Patrolling party of the Border Security Force. They were chased by the Patrolling party and one of them namely, Bhure Khan, a Pak national, was arrested while the remaining persons succeeded in fleeing away. The statement of Bhure Khan was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and he admitted to be a Pak national and to have brought gold biscuits and gold ornaments frorn Pakistan. He further stated that seeing the Patrolling party, he threw away the goods while running. On search, three bags were recovered by the Border Security Force and the personnels of Customs Department. They contained 252 gold biscuits having foreign marking and ten pieces of gold. The total weight of the gold was 19.5 Kgs. Other ornaments were also recovered alongwith the gold biscuits and pieces of gold. They were seized under section-110 of the Customs Act. From the statement of Bhure Khan it revealed that the smuggled gold biscuits/pieces of gold and ornaments were brought from Pakistan for the persons whose names were written on different packets. It may be stated that all these articles were in different packets containing names of some persons. The petitioners and other co-accused persons were arrested in the above case and they are now facing trial in the court of Special Magistrate, Economic Offences, Rajasthan, Jaipur for the charge under section 135 of the Customs Act.

(3). Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that so far as the petitioner, Aachar is concerned, the only evidence against him is the statement of Bhure Khan, recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act and there is no other link to connect him with the crime. Tor the slip/chit of the name of the petitioner on the packet, it was contended that it could hardly have any evidentiary value, as on the basis of such chit/slip no person can be held liable under section 135 of the Customs Act. Thus, the argument of Shri Bajwa, counsel for petitioner Aachar is that there is no legal evidence and any statement/confession of the co-accused, even if accepted on its face value, is not an evidence and it could be taken into consideration to lend assurance to the conclusion of the guilt if the same is otherwise proved from the evidence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haricharan Kumari vs. State of Bihar, (1).

(4). For the petitioner, Gulia, the argument of Mr. Bajwa is that the statement of the accused, recorded under section-108 of the Customs Act, is inadmissible in view of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

(5). On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Department, contended that smuggling activities have recently increased on Indo-Pak Border in Rajasthan and such activities need to be curbed. Mr. Balwada, appearing for the Department in bail application No. 3928/94, was specifically asked by the Court as to whether there was any evidence to connect the accused Aachar except the so-called statement/confession of the co-accused, Bhure Khan, recorded under section-108 of the Customs Act? He was unable to point any other circumstances except that in the slip/chit on one of the packets, name of the petitioner was written.

(6). Mr. S.S. Hasan appearing for the Department in bail application No. 3090/94, contended that the statement of Bhure Khan recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, as well as, the statement of the petitioner, Gulia recorded under Sec. 108 of the Act are sufficient to connect him with the crime. It was also contended that their statements get corroboration from the chit/slip on the smuggled articles containing his name.

(7). I have given my careful con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document