[2025:RJ-JP:5738] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 1165/2025 Shri Pradeep Kumar Nehra S/o Shri Harphool Singh Nehra, R/o F-71, Industrial Area Jaipur Road, Jaipur 332001 (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Inspector, Customs Duty, Jaipur International Airport, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Sharma, Ms. Sangeeta Bhayana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roop Narayan, SPP, Mr. Ajay Shukla, Mr. Raghav Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Reportable Order Reserved on :: 31/01/2025 Pronounced on :: /02/2025 1. The present third bail application is filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the accused petitioner, who is currently detained in connection with F.No. VIII(48)AP/32/2023-2024, registered with the Customs Department at Jaipur International Airport. This case involves serious offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Customs Act'). [2025:RJ-JP:5738] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-1165/2025] 2. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner firmly asserts that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The counsel emphasises that the charge sheet/complaint was submitted on 11.01.2024. Since then, the Trial Court has unjustly failed to initiate the trial or frame any charges against the petitioner, particularly after dismissing the second bail application; nearly 10 months have elapsed without any advancement towards commencing the trial. It is crucial to highlight that the accused, residing in Sikar, possesses an expired visa and has retained his passport by authorities, eliminating any risk of him evading the trial. Furthermore, the petitioner is unequivocally prepared to adhere to any conditions the Court imposes. The extensive documentation in this case includes at least eight prosecution witnesses—mostly official witnesses—substantially reducing any risk of evidence tampering. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to continue detaining the accused petitioner. Given his arrest on 12.01.2024 and the excessive duration of his incarceration, this third bail application demands approval. The petitioner’s counsel references authoritative judgments from the Hon’ble Apex Court, including Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, Vinod Goenka Vs. CBI, 2011 (4) JCC 2913, and State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, 1977 (4) SCC 308, to substantiate these claims. 3. In stark opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contests the third bail application, arguing that there has been no substantial change in circumstances since the dismissal of the second bail application. The Court's order dated [2025:RJ-JP:5738] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-1165/2025] 09.02.2024 reflects a comprehensive examination of the accused’s role, leading to the justified dismissal of both the first and second bail applications. The severity of the allegations against the petitioner is undeniable: he was apprehended at Jaipur International Airport while attempting to smuggle gold articles concealed in sandals, totalling approximately 2,466 grams, valued at Rs. 1,57,82,400/-. Moreover, the petitioner has a documented history of involvement in gold smuggling. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act reveals that he had transported 8,500 grams of gold through illicit means in the last 5 to 6 months, including smuggling 13983 grams to Hyderabad. Investigative findings confirm that he has frequently travelled to Sharjah and Dubai, with 32 verified visits. Given these grave allegations, the third bail application must be unequivocally dismissed. 4. The matter has undergone thorough examination, and all evidence has been meticulously reviewed. The facts confirm that the petitioner possessed a significant quantity of smuggled gold concealed in his sandals, amounting to Rs. 1.58 crores, which customs officials seized at Jaipur Airport. The petitioner regularly travelled to Jaipur from abroad, supported by corroborating ticket details. While the legitimacy of the petitioner’s previous visits to India and his non-involvement in smuggling requires consideration during the trial, this Court cannot provide any definitive opinion on the merits at this stage. However, it is established that a substantial quantity of smuggled goods was recovered from the petitioner without valid documentation, indicating severe [2025:RJ-JP:5738] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-1165/2025] involvement in the alleged offence. The legal precedents cited by the petitioner’s counsel do not pertain to the unique circumstances of this case. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without due legal process. This foundational principle of our criminal laws underscores the essential balance between justice and individual rights. The authority granted to arrest and grant bail is a critical component of punitive laws, emphasising the necessity of a fair judicial process. 5. The procedures outlined in the CrPC, BNSS, and special statutes concerning bail in non-bailable cases—especially those involving life imprisonment or the death penalty—are fundamentally discretionary. These processes hinge on key factors, including the particulars of the case, societal implications, the accused's conduct, and the potential for evidence tampering. The deliberate nature of economic crimes must be given heightened consideration. Section 437(6) of the CrPC/ 480(6) BNSS does not impose mandatory requirements but instead empowers the court to grant bail if a trial is not concluded within 60 days. Nevertheless, the Magistrate retains the authority to deny bail based on the case's specifics. 6. This procedural framework empowers individuals to seek bail and mandates that the court provide justified logic. These procedures stem directly from the fundamental principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and have consistently withstood judicial scrutiny. Moreover, Section 479 BNSS reads as follows:- [2025:RJ-JP:5738] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-1165/2025] "Section: 479. The maximum period for which under trial prisoner can be detained. (1) Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one- half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail: Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past), he shall be released on bond by the Court if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law: Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond: Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law: Explanation:- In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. (3) The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one- third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail." 7. The proviso appended to the above section specifies that if a person is a first time offender and has undergone detention of [2025:RJ-JP:5738] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-1165/2025] one-third of the punishment provided shall be released on bail, which means thereby that the first-time offender may be detained lawfully up to the period of one-third of the imprisonment provided under the offence committed. 8. These procedures are intended to be inserted by the legislature and fundamentally flow from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This established procedure firmly reinforces that the right to bail is contingent upon the just discretion of the court. While bail is generally the rule and jail is the exception, the decision rests firmly on objective criteria and judicial discretion, ensuring that courts apply it by the broad principles governing the granting or refusal of bail in individual cases. 9. In this case, the petitioner's first and second bail applications have been unequivocally dismissed due to the substantial incriminating evidence against him. This prima facie establishes that he smuggled significant gold from abroad into India. The petitioner has been in detention from 12.01.2024. Under section 135(1)(a)(i)(A) of the act, the maximum punishment provided is of seven years. The complaint includes only eight witnesses, and there is no reasonable expectation that the trial will not be concluded on time. The petitioner executed this crime with evident premeditation. Economic offences demand stringent action. 10. In contrast, the cases of Manish Sisodia (Supra) and Arvind Kejriwal, 2024 INSC 400, involved an extensive collection of documents and a lengthy list of witnesses, resulting in the court finding that a swift conclusion to their trials was unlikely. However, in the current situation, with only eight prosecution witnesses and [2025:RJ-JP:5738] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-1165/2025] no likelihood of prolonged proceedings, these considerations do not apply. 11. After thoroughly assessing this case's unique facts and the crime's severity, this court firmly denies the petitioner’s request for bail. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/10