V.B. Bansal, J.
(1) Madan Lal petitioner has prayed for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 20th February, 1991 for the offence under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act (for short the Act) and since then he has been in custody. He has also submitted that the petitioner is no more required for investigation and complaint has already been filed. A prayer has, thereforee, been made for the release of the petitioner on bail.
(3) This application has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent.
(4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(5) S.C. Khanna, Air Customs Officer, Igi Airport, New Delhi filed a complaint against the petitioner and nine others including Dina Nath Anand for the offences punishable under Sees. 135 and 136 of the Customs Act read with Sec. 120-B Indian Penal Code and Sec. 135 of the Customs Act. It was, inter alia, stated in the complaint that in his statement recorded under Sec. 108 of the Act Arvinder Singh accused has stated that he along with coaccused Ashok Kumar Kanwar had gone to Hong Kong on 5th January, 1991 and purchased 8900 pieces of watch movements China Lady Machine and 8 pieces of wrist watches in Hong Kong having paid Rs. 3 lacs and also brought 60,u00 integrated circuits which were to be delivered to Dina Nath Anand at Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 60,000.00 and that after staying at Hong Kong up to 8th January, 1991 went to Bangkok wherefrom these goods were booked in the name of his father-in-law Manak Singh. It was also stated that be along with Ashok Kumar and Manak Singh co-accused arrived at Delhi Airport on 10th January, 1991 when Ashok Kumar declared his goods which were detained for payment of duty while Manak Singh reported at another counter where he deposited the above said goods for re-export having asked Manak Singh to deposit them for re-export since they had a programme of getting these goods removed from the warehouse. It was also stated that while going abroad Ashok Kumar had a talk with K K. Kapur Air Customs Officer who agreed to help them on getting a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 . These goods were shown to have been re-exported out of India by Manak Singh on 21st January, 1991 after taking out of the same from Customs Warehouse.
(6) However, on 1st February, 1991 an information was placed before the Assistant Collector of Customs Igi Airport by Air Customs Officer V.P.S. Khurana that as a result of gross irregularity committed by some persons consignment comprising of 8900 pcs. of watch movements, 60000 pieces of integrated circuits and 8 pieces of wrist watches brought by Manak Singh lying deposited with the international Airports Authority of India's Warehouse at Igi Airport, New Delhi against where house register entry 84/6 have been removed fraudulently and the name of the Re-export officer Shri V.P.S. Khurana was mentioned in the relevant register of re-export maintained by International Airports Authority of India, who had purportedly requisitioned whereas Khurana had not requisitioned the same. An enquiry was accordingly conducted and statements under Section 108 of the Act were recorded of many persons including Madan Lal, Dina Nath and other accused persons. It wa found that Arvinder Singh took the above said goods in a taxi No. Dlj 5450 to the house of Ashok Kumar Kanwar who handed over wrist movements to Madan Lal for a sum of Rs. 4,45,000.00 while 60000 integrated circuits were handed over to Dina Nath at 2 Malkaganj Road, Delhi in exchange of Rs. 60,000.00 . Statement of Madan Lal was also recorded who, inter alia, stated that he was not in possession of any license to deal in foreign watch movements and he purchased 8900 watch movements when Ashok Kumar agreed to band over to him the bills subsequently which was never given to him. He had also stated that since the bills were not given to him he sold these watch movements to different persons without any receipt and that the payments had been made by him to said Ashok Kumar.
(7) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the case of smuggling of the watch movements and that the only allegation against the petitioner has been about his having made the purchase of the watch movements and having sold the same. He has also submitted that there have not been any document in support of the allegations against the petitioner and that his statement was recorded under duress.
(8) Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner made a voluntary statement and that there is no reason why not to believe the same and when read with the statements of other accused persons he is clearly involved in the commission of the offence.
(9) It is not disputed that Dina Nath Anand is one of the accused and as per the allegations made in the complaint 60000 integrated circuits were handed over to Dina Nath having been imported from Bangkok. It is also not disputed that Dina Nath Anand was examined under S. 108 of the Act but has not been arrested and a complaint was filed in Court.
(10) Considering all these facts, I am clearly of the view that it is a fit case for release of the petitioner on bail.
(11) As a result, I order for the release of the petitioner subject to furnishing personal bond for Rs. 50.000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and on the condition that he would not leave the country without the permission of the concerned Court.