High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohammad Javed And Ors @APPELLANT@Hash Union Of India Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 26 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 RAJ CK 0038

HON’BLE JUDGES
PANKAJ BHANDARI, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135(1)(A)(B)(C ), 108
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 4017 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 290 words
1.

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2.

F.I.R. No. VIII(48)AP/02/2018 was registered by Inspector, Customs Airport, Jaipur for the offence under Section 135(1)(A) (B)(C) of Customs

Act, 1962.

3.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that foreign currency to the value of Rs.1,12,00,000/- was seized from Naresh. Present petitioner has

been made an accused as he was travelling on a common PNR with Naresh.

4.

Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the bail application. His contention is that initially one bag was recovered from Naresh from wherein

foreign currency was recovered. But later on, on the basis of statement of the present petitioner under Section 108 of Customs Act, it was revealed

that the bag which present petitioner was carrying was also having a concealed compartment, wherein foreign currency valued at Rs.43,00,000/-was

concealed. Later on foreign currency and that bag was also seized by the Custom Department.

5.

It is contended that foreign currency involved in this case is more than 1,00,00,000/-. The offence is punishable for sentence of seven years and is

an economic offence having far reaching consequences.

6.

It is also contended that as both the passengers were travelling together and from the statement, it is revealed that the bags containing foreign

currency were given to Naresh and present petitioner for delivering the same at Sharjaha to some unknown person. Photograph of the petitioner was

clicked and was transmitted to the person at Sharjaha to facilitate delivery of foreign currency.

7.

I have considered the contentions.

8.

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the Union of India, I am not inclined to allow the present bail application.

9.

The present bail application is accordingly rejected.