Vinod Kumar Verma vs Union of India

Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—Heard Sri I.B. Singh assisted by Sri Sajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Seth, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party.

It is contended by Sri I.B. Singh that offence is triable by Magistrate Ist Class. Applicant has been framed. No prohibited item was recovered from the possession of the applicant and in any case recovered item is not prohibited as it was not imported through Nepal and stipulation made in the statement, was subsequently got added. It is further submitted that earlier this offence was bailable but has now become non-bailable but the criteria to grant bail remains unchanged. Maximum punishment provided is 7 years imprisonment. Applicant is lying in jail since 21-11-2015.

Contention of Sri Deepak Seth, learned counsel for Revenue, is that these are economic offences which destroy the very economic structure of the nation, as such, prevalent view in the cases of maximum sentence of seven years, should not be taken. It is further submitted that accused after release would often abscond and would not appear so as to delay the trial.

He further submitted that it has been admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Gold was brought from Nepal which is not permitted.

Keeping in view the maximum sentence provided in the offence and submission that possession of Gold, if not imported through Nepal, is not unauthorized, as the submission is, in the opinion of the Court, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the applicant in jail in any more, keeping in view the ratio of judgment given by Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. [(2012) 1 SCC 40]

Consequently, applicant-Vinod Kumar Verma involved in Complaint Crime No. 41/2015, Complaint No. 0000105 of 2016, under Sections 104, 110, 111, 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, Police Station D.R.I., Lucknow, is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant will attend the trial on each date.

(ii) The applicant will not leave India and he will deposit his Passport with the learned Magistrate.

(iii) The applicant will furnish sureties to the tune of Rupees One Crore with the satisfaction of the court concerned, in addition to usual bonds.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.