Roshan Thakur vs Union of India

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party and perused the record.

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3-11-2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No. 3, Lucknow, by which the petitioner has been granted bail but on the heavy sureties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was simply carrier of the Gold and he is a poor person and received only Rs. 1200/- as carrier charges, therefore, the surety amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) is excessive and the same may be reduced.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on the spot and 1 kg. gold worth Rs. 31.00 lakhs has been recovered from his possession, therefore, the surety amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs cannot be said to be excessive.

Certainly, the petitioner should have the knowledge for carrying unauthorized gold, is not permissible under the law.

From possession of the petitioner 1 kg. gold, which was being smuggled from Singapore to India has been recovered at the Airport. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner is a poor person. If the petitioner can travel by Air and can have 1 kg. gold, he cannot be said to be a poor person.

In view of the above, I do not find any abuse of process of law in the order dated 3-11-2016. I also do not find any substance in the grounds of petition. The petition lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

However, the sureties amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs is modified to the extent of Rs. 3.00 lakhs and the remaining order shall remain the same.