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.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER

4 03.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for D.R.I.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Economic (DRI) P.S. case No. 13(O)/25, arising out of D.R.I. Unit Case No. 9/2025-26 registered under Section 135 (1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’)

3. As per the prosecution case, acting upon specific intelligence officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Patna intercepted the accused on 26.06.2025 while he was travelling in Train No. 15658 (Brahmaputra Mail) at Patna Railway Junction. Upon personal search, 12 gold bullions of foreign origin were recovered from concealed compartments of a trolley bag and the jeans pant worn by the accused. The seized gold weighed 1990.800 grams and was valued at ₹1,98,18,414/- (Rupees one crore ninety-eight lakh eighteen thousand four hundred fourteen only). The accused failed to produce any valid document in support of lawful possession and, in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act, admitted that the gold had been smuggled from Myanmar and was being transported to Delhi for delivery. Consequently, the gold was seized under Section 110 of the Act as being liable to confiscation, and the accused was arrested on 27.06.2025 for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1)(b) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the entire prosecution story is fabricated and founded merely on suspicion, and that no recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. According to the defence, the petitioner had gone to Platform No. 4 of Patna Junction on 26.06.2025 only to receive a friend arriving from Kolkata. Upon learning that the friend had missed the train, the petitioner was about to return when he was apprehended by DRI officials without any lawful basis.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner was forcibly taken to the DRI Office, Patna, where his signatures were obtained on blank papers, which were subsequently converted into a purported statement under Section 108 of the Act. The defence asserts that none of the seized articles belong to the petitioner except his mobile phone and Aadhaar card, and that he has never claimed ownership of the recovered gold bullions. The petitioner, it is contended, has been made a scapegoat without any fault on his part. Emphasis is laid on the fact that he is a permanent resident with deep-rooted ties to society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence, particularly when the charge-sheet has already been filed.

6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of D.R.I..

Learned counsel for the D.R.I. places reliance on the counter- affidavit and submits that the plea of innocence and absence of criminal antecedents carries little weight in cases involving grave economic offences. Acting upon specific intelligence, officers of the DRI, Patna intercepted the petitioner from Train No. 15658 (Brahmaputra Mail) in the presence of independent witnesses. The petitioner initially attempted to conceal his identity and thereafter admitted that he was carrying 12 gold bullions of foreign origin, weighing 1990.800 grams and valued at ₹1,98,18,414/- (Rupees one crore ninety-eight lakh eighteen thousand four hundred and fourteen only) without any valid supporting documents. The contraband was recovered from concealed compartments of his trolley bag and clothing and was seized under Section 110 of the Act.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for D.R.I.

that the petitioner’s statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act contains a clear admission regarding the smuggling