New Delhi, Oct 6 A court here has granted bail to eight men accused of smuggling over 6 kg of gold worth Rs 9.9 crore, observing that the Delhi customs department had not shown any specific reason for their continued detention.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Mridul Gupta was hearing the bail plea of the accused, who were arrested by the customs department on September 22 after being detained the previous night at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on suspicion of gold smuggling following their return from Dubai.
In an order passed on Monday, the court said the allegations were serious, involving the recovery of 6,495 grams of gold valued at approximately Rs 9.90 crore and an alleged pre-planned arrangement under which one accused distributed the gold among the others before the security area, collected it back after the security and immigration area, and then travelled with them to India.
The court, however, noted that no gold was recovered from the person or baggage of any of the accused upon their arrival in India, or at their instance, and that the gold was recovered from the aircraft after they had disembarked.
“The specific allegation regarding distribution and subsequent collection of the gold is stated to have taken place in Dubai. At this stage, apart from the disputed Section 108 statements ( of the Customs Act) and the circumstances relating to their common travel, no independent contemporaneous material has been pointed out,” the court said.
Section 108 of the Customs Act allows customs officers to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents during an official inquiry. Such inquiry is treated as a legal or judicial proceeding and statements recorded under the provision can be used as substantive evidence.
The court said there was an absence of evidence, including CCTV footage, statements of airline or ground-handling personnel or other witnesses specifically corroborating the alleged handing over and subsequent collection of the gold in Dubai or demonstrating the meeting, communication, handling, concealment or placement of the recovered gold by the accused.
It said the mere possibility of further material emerging during investigation cannot justify continued incarceration and the principal physical evidence had been seized.
The court said, “The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to inflict pre-trial punishment. The documentary/electronic material is substantially within the custody or control of the investigating agency, and no specific custodial purpose requiring continued detention has been demonstrated.”
The court said it was a fit case for grant of bail considering the totality of facts and circumstances, including the nature of evidence presently available, absence of personal recovery, disputed Section 108 statements, absence at this stage of independent corroborative material connecting the accused with the alleged recovery, period of custody undergone and absence of criminal antecedents.
It said the department's apprehension regarding tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses can be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.
The court granted bail to the eight accused on personal and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each, besides imposing other conditions including that they not leave the country, appear before the court, cooperate with the investigation, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and keep their mobile phones switched on at all times.
