1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Siddhant Mishra, for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Lucknow.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in D.R.I. Case No. 17 of 2024, under S.135 of the Customs Act,1962, Police Station - D.R.I., District - Lucknow.

3. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that it was informed to the team of the D.R.I. that the applicant is carrying Nepal smuggled gold in a Toyota Innova Crysta Car bearing registration no. U.P. 53 CV 0904 and one another person namely, Ram Kesh is also sitting over there. Upon the aforesaid information, the car was intercepted at adjacent to Neebu Park, Lucknow and when the search was made, 5 K.G. gold in 30 pieces and jewellery weighing 783.780 grams were recovered from the possession of the applicant as well as another co - accused and when they were asked to show the license or the bills thereof, they stated that the gold and jewellery are of foreign origin as the same are smuggled from Nepal and total value of the same, which was valued by the authorized valuer, was found to be value of Rs.4,07,68,675/-. After the such recovery, the recovery memo was prepared and a case was registered by the D.R.I. vide D.R.I. Case No. 17 of 2024 under S.135 of the Customs Act, 1962(hereinafter, referred to as 'Act,1962'), Police Station - D.R.I., District - Lucknow.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted / implicated by the officials of the D.R.I. He submits that the applicant is a gold businessman and he has a gold shop at district - Gorakhpur, in the name and style of M/s Anuradha Jewellery Firms and the applicant has business terms with the jewellers at Lucknow, namely, Balaji Buliyan and Jewellers and Lal Ji Jewellers and he was coming for got make of the jewellery from the gold pieces, but, on baseless information that those pieces are the foreign origin gold and have been smuggled from Nepal, the D.R.I. officials intercepted and unlawfully recovered the gold and have shown it as if the same were the smuggled gold, but, infact, the alleged recovered gold and jewellery are of the applicant and that was never smuggled from abroad and that too, is not a foreign gold. He also submits that the gold and jewellery are of the applicant and he is not disowning the same as the gold and jewellery have been confiscated and the notice has been issued, but, unless the applicant is released on bail, he would not be in a position to properly response to the notice of the D.R.I., which was issued in pursuant to the confiscation proceedings.

5. It is argued that the recovered gold and jewellery from the car were seized while invoking the provisions of S.110 of the Act, 1962, whereas the provisions of S.111 and S.123 of the Act, have been violated. He added that the report prepared by the alleged valuer, has not been supplied to the applicant as per the procedure prescribed and whether the valuer is authorized or not, it is also suspicious. He submits that without ascertaining the facts that the gold is in the category of 'Prohibited Goods' as is defined under S.2(33) of the Act, 1962, the D.R.I., proceeded in the matter, whereas the gold is not such a metal, which can all the time be said as a prohibited goods, but, at the same time, this can be a restricted item / goods. He also submitted that so far as the statement, which is said to be confessional statement of the applicant, is the result of threatening and coercion given by the D.R.I. officials to the applicant for facing with dire consequences and therefore, the statement given by the applicant is not of his own free will or without duress.

6. Further submission is that there is no evidence that the gold and jewellery in question are of foreign origin and are smuggled from foreign as the prosecution has prima - facie, failed to dem