High Court · 2025

Delhi to Firozabad, and the same was acted upon by a team of DRI Officers, Noida accompanied by two independent witnesses (panchas). The team intercepted U.P. roadways bus bearing registration No. UP 78 JN0199, and upon entering the officers identified one of the two persons sitting in the middle seat of the vehicle with a backpack bag of black colour, who on asking informed that the other person accompanying him is sitting behind the driver, who was also having a backpack bag of navy blue colour. The two persons disclosed their name as Anil Kumar Sharma @ Bablu and Sudhir Kumar @ Sunil. On questioning, they denied that they are carrying any smuggled foreign origin gold, therefore, notice under section 102 Customs Act, 1962 was served and they both were apprised about their legal rights for searching in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. At that stage, they both disclosed that they are carrying foreign origin smuggled gold concealed in their respective right shoe. From Anil Kumar Sharma, two pieces (one small and another large) of yellow metal were found and they weighed 172 gms and 828 gms respectively. The smaller piece appeared to be the part of the larger piece. Besides, the recovery of gold, one mobile phone was also recovered from him. Similarly, on searching Sudhir Kumar, one yellow metal bar weighing 1000 gms was recovered, alongwith the driving license, Delhi Metro Card and mobile phone. They further disclosed that they worked at a jewellery shop namely M/s AK Jewellers and Ankit Jindal, proprietor is their employer. The recovered material was kept in a transparent bag and the purity of the gold was also ascertained as 995. The consolidated value of all the three pieces was assessed at Rs.1,49,48,600/-. The two pieces of gold weighing 172 gms and 828 gms valued at Rs.12,85,580/- and 61,88,720/-, respectively, whereas the gold recovered from Sudhir was valued at Rs.74,74,300/-. The persons carrying illicit foreign origin gold could not produce any document showing licit import, possession and transportation of 2000 gms of gold recovered from their possession and they both informed that the recovered gold bars were smuggled, which was brought in India by carriers of Pandit Ji @ Naresh @ Naresh Delhi whose details are not known. Subsequently, the statements of accused were recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 wherein they stated that they were given an amount of Rs.1 crore 44 Lakhs by Ankit Jindal for bringing gold. The gold recovered from Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar was delivered to them by Panditji @ Naresh @ Naresh Delhi. On the basis of the disclosure made by Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar, the house of Ankit Jindal was also searched and gold and silver jewellery was recovered and the details of the same in a tabulated form are contained in the complaint.

3. The applications filed by the applicants for grant of regular bail before the trial Court was dismissed vide respective orders dated

22.11.2024, 05.09.2024 and 05.09.2024. Hence these applications.

4. In response to the present applications filed by the applicants, the counter affidavits on behalf of Union of India filed by Mr. Krishna Agarawal, learned Advocate.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar argued that these two accused persons were acting on the instructions of their employer namely Ankit Jindal and the recovered gold belonged to the said accused, who is engaged in the business of Jewellery. Learned counsel has further argued that according to the prosecution itself both the accused persons were sitting at different seats in the bus which was intercepted for search and the individual recovery of gold from each accused is below the value of Rs.1 crore, therefore, the alleged offence would be bailable in the terms of Section 104 (7) Customs Act, 1962. Learned Counsel further argued that the investigation in the case is complete and the applicants being in custody since their arrest on 12.7.2024 are not required for any purpose, therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the accused Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Tufial Vs. Union of India And Another passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57731 of 2022, and argued that in the said case, the recovery of gold effected from two persons was collectively valued more than Rs.1 Crore, but this Court upon analyzing the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 held that the individual recovery from each accused is to be seen, and accordingly extended the concession of bail to the accused persons on the ground that the alleged offences are bailable being covered by Section 104(7) Customs Act, 1962.

6. Learned counsel for the Ankit Jindal has argued that as per prosecution itself, the recovery of the gold bar is effected from the other accused persons and the applicant- Ankit Jindal has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by them. He submits that the applicant is in custody since his arrest on

21.11.2024 and the charges against the accused are yet to be proved, therefore, the further detention of the accused- applicant is not justified. Learned counsel has referred to the complaint dated 30.01.2025 filed by Union of India and pointed out that the statement of the accused persons was recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 and all the accused persons have consistently stated that the applicant- Ankit Jindal is engaged in the business of jewellery, who is running a firm M/s AK Jewellers as a proprietor. He submits that merely because at the time of recovery of the gold, the invoices or the other documents relating to the gold were not produced by the employees, it would not mean that the recovered article was smuggled. Learned counsel has referred to the contents of the Para 17 of the affidavit attached with the application for bail to point out that the recovered material was purchased by proprietorship firm of Ankit Jindal on 18.12.2023 from Maa Pitambara Trading Company, Agra. According to learned counsel the investigation of the case is complete, therefore, he prays that the applicants be released on bail.

7. The prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for UOI, who has argued that specific secret input was received about the transportation of illegal smuggled gold by two persons and at the time of seizure of the said gold from accused Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar, no invoices or documents relating to the said material was shown by them. Learned counsel has further argued that the statement made by the accused under section 108 Customs Act would be admissible in evidence and according to their stand the accused have confessed that the recovered gold is a smuggled article. Mr. Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for UOI submitted that the recovery of gold is valued more than 1 crore, therefore, apparently the offences would not fall within the ambit of Section 104(7) Customs Act, 1967, as the offences are non-bailable and carry the sentence of seven years imprisonment. According to learned counsel, the trial court has carefully examined the prosecution case and has rightly refused the concession of regular bail to the applicants.

8. Mr. Krishna Agarwal, leaned counsel of Union of India has further argued that after the arrest of the Anil Kumar Sharma on

12.7.2024, the house of applicant- Ankit Jindal was raided and further a recovery of gold ornaments, silver ornaments were effected on 13.7.2024. He submits that the alleged crime constitutes economic offences, therefore, their prayer for bail be rejected.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Ankit Jindal- applicant has argued that the complaint dated 30.01.2025 is confined only to the alleged recovery of 2000 gms of gold and the recovery effected from the house of Ankit Jindal being in the nature of ornaments is not the subject matter or case property for his prosecution for violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.

10. At this juncture, Mr. Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the UOI has fairly stated that the prosecution case is only related to the recovery of the 2000 gms of gold effected on 12.7.2024.

11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the officials of the DRI had intercepted a roadways bus wherein accused persons Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar were travelling and from them 1 kg gold each was recovered. Of course, the value of the recovered gold individually is below 1 Crore whereas collectively, it is more than 1 crore, but while deciding the prayer for bail, this Court is not inclined to make any comment on the nature of offence whether it is bailable or non-bailable. No doubt, in the case of Mohd. Tufial (supra), this Court has observed that the recovery effected from each accused is to be considered to determine the nature of the offence, but this Court is not inclined to comment upon the nature of the alleged offence, if, it would fall under section 104(6) or 104(7) Customs Act, 1962 as the charges against the accused have also not been framed so far. Otherwise also, this issue can be effectively decided by the trial court on the strength of the evidence of the parties.

12. Similarly, the admissibility of the statements of the accused recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 would also be tested during trial. However, considering the stand of the accused, who claim that the recovered material was acquired by them in legitimate manner, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the applicants may not be necessary for any useful purpose. Concededly the investigation in the matter is complete and after filing of the complaint/ charge-sheet even the charges have not been framed against the accused, therefore, it is clear that the trial is yet to start. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the crime as well as the period undergone by the applicants and the punishment provided for the alleged offences, this Court deems it proper to extend the concession of regular bail to them, as the conclusion of trial is likely to consume considerable time. Further, the material witnesses are the officials of DRI and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over.

13. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicants– Ankit Jindal, Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar be released on regular bail in the above case subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is further directed that the accused- applicants shall also abide by the terms and conditions of bail, which shall be imposed by the trial court at the time of acceptance of their bail bonds and surety bonds. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Shiv SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Delhi to Firozabad, and the same was acted upon by a team of DRI Officers, Noida accompanied by two independent witnesses (panchas). The team intercepted U.P. roadways bus bearing registration No. UP 78 JN0199, and upon entering the officers identified one of the two persons sitting in the middle seat of the vehicle with a backpack bag of black colour, who on asking informed that the other person accompanying him is sitting behind the driver, who was also having a backpack bag of navy blue colour. The two persons disclosed their name as Anil Kumar Sharma @ Bablu and Sudhir Kumar @ Sunil. On questioning, they denied that they are carrying any smuggled foreign origin gold, therefore, notice under section 102 Customs Act, 1962 was served and they both were apprised about their legal rights for searching in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. At that stage, they both disclosed that they are carrying foreign origin smuggled gold concealed in their respective right shoe. From Anil Kumar Sharma, two pieces (one small and another large) of yellow metal were found and they weighed 172 gms and 828 gms respectively. The smaller piece appeared to be the part of the larger piece. Besides, the recovery of gold, one mobile phone was also recovered from him. Similarly, on searching Sudhir Kumar, one yellow metal bar weighing 1000 gms was recovered, alongwith the driving license, Delhi Metro Card and mobile phone. They further disclosed that they worked at a jewellery shop namely M/s AK Jewellers and Ankit Jindal, proprietor is their employer. The recovered material was kept in a transparent bag and the purity of the gold was also ascertained as 995. The consolidated value of all the three pieces was assessed at Rs.1,49,48,600/-. The two pieces of gold weighing 172 gms and 828 gms valued at Rs.12,85,580/- and 61,88,720/-, respectively, whereas the gold recovered from Sudhir was valued at Rs.74,74,300/-. The persons carrying illicit foreign origin gold could not produce any document showing licit import, possession and transportation of 2000 gms of gold recovered from their possession and they both informed that the recovered gold bars were smuggled, which was brought in India by carriers of Pandit Ji @ Naresh @ Naresh Delhi whose details are not known. Subsequently, the statements of accused were recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 wherein they stated that they were given an amount of Rs.1 crore 44 Lakhs by Ankit Jindal for bringing gold. The gold recovered from Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar was delivered to them by Panditji @ Naresh @ Naresh Delhi. On the basis of the disclosure made by Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar, the house of Ankit Jindal was also searched and gold and silver jewellery was recovered and the details of the same in a tabulated form are contained in the complaint.

3. The applications filed by the applicants for grant of regular bail before the trial Court was dismissed vide respective orders dated

22.11.2024, 05.09.2024 and 05.09.2024. Hence these applications.

4. In response to the present applications filed by the applicants, the counter affidavits on behalf of Union of India filed by Mr. Krishna Agarawal, learned Advocate.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar argued that these two accused persons were acting on the instructions of their employer namely Ankit Jindal and the recovered gold belonged to the said accused, who is engaged in the business of Jewellery. Learned counsel has further argued that according to the prosecution itself both the accused persons were sitting at different seats in the bus which was intercepted for search and the individual recovery of gold from each accused is below the value of Rs.1 crore, therefore, the alleged offence would be bailable in the terms of Section 104 (7) Customs Act, 1962. Learned Counsel further argued that the investigation in the case is complete and the applicants being in custody since their arrest on 12.7.2024 are not required for any purpose, therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be released on regular bail. Learned counsel for the accused Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Tufial Vs. Union of India And Another passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.57731 of 2022, and argued that in the said case, the recovery of gold effected from two persons was collectively valued more than Rs.1 Crore, but this Court upon analyzing the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 held that the individual recovery from each accused is to be seen, and accordingly extended the concession of bail to the accused persons on the ground that the alleged offences are bailable being covered by Section 104(7) Customs Act, 1962.

6. Learned counsel for the Ankit Jindal has argued that as per prosecution itself, the recovery of the gold bar is effected from the other accused persons and the applicant- Ankit Jindal has been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statements suffered by them. He submits that the applicant is in custody since his arrest on

21.11.2024 and the charges against the accused are yet to be proved, therefore, the further detention of the accused- applicant is not justified. Learned counsel has referred to the complaint dated 30.01.2025 filed by Union of India and pointed out that the statement of the accused persons was recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 and all the accused persons have consistently stated that the applicant- Ankit Jindal is engaged in the business of jewellery, who is running a firm M/s AK Jewellers as a proprietor. He submits that merely because at the time of recovery of the gold, the invoices or the other documents relating to the gold were not produced by the employees, it would not mean that the recovered article was smuggled. Learned counsel has referred to the contents of the Para 17 of the affidavit attached with the application for bail to point out that the recovered material was purchased by proprietorship firm of Ankit Jindal on 18.12.2023 from Maa Pitambara Trading Company, Agra. According to learned counsel the investigation of the case is complete, therefore, he prays that the applicants be released on bail.

7. The prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for UOI, who has argued that specific secret input was received about the transportation of illegal smuggled gold by two persons and at the time of seizure of the said gold from accused Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar, no invoices or documents relating to the said material was shown by them. Learned counsel has further argued that the statement made by the accused under section 108 Customs Act would be admissible in evidence and according to their stand the accused have confessed that the recovered gold is a smuggled article. Mr. Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for UOI submitted that the recovery of gold is valued more than 1 crore, therefore, apparently the offences would not fall within the ambit of Section 104(7) Customs Act, 1967, as the offences are non-bailable and carry the sentence of seven years imprisonment. According to learned counsel, the trial court has carefully examined the prosecution case and has rightly refused the concession of regular bail to the applicants.

8. Mr. Krishna Agarwal, leaned counsel of Union of India has further argued that after the arrest of the Anil Kumar Sharma on

12.7.2024, the house of applicant- Ankit Jindal was raided and further a recovery of gold ornaments, silver ornaments were effected on 13.7.2024. He submits that the alleged crime constitutes economic offences, therefore, their prayer for bail be rejected.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Ankit Jindal- applicant has argued that the complaint dated 30.01.2025 is confined only to the alleged recovery of 2000 gms of gold and the recovery effected from the house of Ankit Jindal being in the nature of ornaments is not the subject matter or case property for his prosecution for violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.

10. At this juncture, Mr. Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the UOI has fairly stated that the prosecution case is only related to the recovery of the 2000 gms of gold effected on 12.7.2024.

11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the officials of the DRI had intercepted a roadways bus wherein accused persons Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar were travelling and from them 1 kg gold each was recovered. Of course, the value of the recovered gold individually is below 1 Crore whereas collectively, it is more than 1 crore, but while deciding the prayer for bail, this Court is not inclined to make any comment on the nature of offence whether it is bailable or non-bailable. No doubt, in the case of Mohd. Tufial (supra), this Court has observed that the recovery effected from each accused is to be considered to determine the nature of the offence, but this Court is not inclined to comment upon the nature of the alleged offence, if, it would fall under section 104(6) or 104(7) Customs Act, 1962 as the charges against the accused have also not been framed so far. Otherwise also, this issue can be effectively decided by the trial court on the strength of the evidence of the parties.

12. Similarly, the admissibility of the statements of the accused recorded under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 would also be tested during trial. However, considering the stand of the accused, who claim that the recovered material was acquired by them in legitimate manner, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the applicants may not be necessary for any useful purpose. Concededly the investigation in the matter is complete and after filing of the complaint/ charge-sheet even the charges have not been framed against the accused, therefore, it is clear that the trial is yet to start. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the crime as well as the period undergone by the applicants and the punishment provided for the alleged offences, this Court deems it proper to extend the concession of regular bail to them, as the conclusion of trial is likely to consume considerable time. Further, the material witnesses are the officials of DRI and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over.

13. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicants– Ankit Jindal, Anil Kumar Sharma and Sudhir Kumar be released on regular bail in the above case subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is further directed that the accused- applicants shall also abide by the terms and conditions of bail, which shall be imposed by the trial court at the time of acceptance of their bail bonds and surety bonds. (Manoj Bajaj,J.) Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Shiv SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad