IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11602 of 2010 1. MUKHTIYAR SINGH SON OF DILIP SINGH 2. SANTOKH SINGH @ SANTOSH SINGH SON OF JAGIR SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA THRU.CUSTOMS With Cr.Misc. No.11607 of 2010 KARNAIL SINGH SON OF MAHENDRA SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CUSTOMS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Union of India : Mrs. Archana Meenakshee, Advocate Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate ------ 4. 25.6.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Union of India. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 7, 46 and 47 of the Custroms Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Dev. & Reg.) Act, 1992. The petitioners are admittedly the drivers/khalasi of the two trucks of the thirteen intercepted by the customs department loaded with betel-nuts of third country origin. It has been submitted that even if the prosecution case is believed, the petitioners are merely carriers whereas the main owners are still at large. The further submission is that from the confessional statement it appears that these petitioners, under lure of small amount of money, have been in the present activities for reasons of financial constraints. Even though there was a dispute with the identity of the petitioner at the initial stage, later on the customs department verified the address and found it to be correct. - 2 - Under the circumstances, the petitioners pray for bail and undertake to co-operate with the trial and not hamper the same in any manner and will be well represented on each date in the case. They also undertake not to indulge in similar activity while on bail. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Customs department opposes the application for bail on the ground that the petitioners on the basis of fake and forged documents for monetory conditions, knowingly, acting as agents have committed this act and do not deserve to be bailed out. However, considering that the petitioners are in custody since 3.10.2009 and undertake not to hamper the trial in any manner, let the petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) each with three sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur in connection with D.R.I. Case No.10 of 2009 (Trial No.306 of 2010), subject to the conditions (i) That one of the bailors shall be local since the petitioners belong to Punjab and the second bailor shall be the father/mother/wife of the petitioners and the third bailor will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners. The bailor will undertake to furnish information to the court about any change in the address of the petitioners. The court will also properly scrutinize the documents of the petitioners as well as the bailors so that there is no dispute with regard to their identity at a - 3 - later point in time, (ii) that the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioners are not an accused in any other case and if they are they shall not be released on bail, (iii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioners are implicated in any other case of similar nature after their release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse and (iv) that the petitioners will be well represented on each date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail will be liable to be cancelled. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )