Patna High Court
Md. SalamuddinversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court held that the offence under Section 135(1)(b) is non‑bailable because the value of the seized goods exceeds the statutory threshold, and therefore bail could not be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Salamuddin, was intercepted on a train at Patna Junction with twelve gold bullions of foreign origin weighing 1990.8 grams, valued at over ₹1.98 crore. The gold was seized under the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioner was charged under Section 135(1)(b) for possession of goods liable to confiscation. He claimed innocence, alleging that his statement recorded under Section 108 was obtained under coercion and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution relied on the seized contraband, the petitioner’s recorded admission, and mobile tower data to establish the case. The court examined the statutory non‑bailable provision in Section 104(6)(c) of the Customs Act, which applies when the value of goods exceeds ₹1 crore, and held that the bail petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the non‑bailable provision under Section 104(6)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 to the present case.
- Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible and voluntary.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or commit further offences if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Customs Act, 1962 — s. 104, 108, 110, 111, 113, 135
Subjects
- bail
- non‑bailable offence
- Customs Act
- Section 135
- economic offence
- gold smuggling
- statement under Section 108
- high‑value contraband
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76916 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Salamuddin son of Late Md. Idrish R/O Mo Miyan Bagh Meena Bazar
Sonepur, PS-Hariharnath District-Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through the Directorate of Revenue intelligence
Regional Unit, Patna bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, APP
For the D.R.I. : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 03.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for D.R.I.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Economic (DRI) P.S. case No. 13(O)/25, arising out of D.R.I.
Unit Case No. 9/2025-26 registered under Section 135(1)(b) of
Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’)
3. As per the prosecution case, acting upon specific
intelligence officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Patna intercepted the accused on 26.06.2025 while he was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
2/15
travelling in Train No. 15658 (Brahmaputra Mail) at Patna
Railway Junction. Upon personal search, 12 gold bullions of
foreign origin were recovered from concealed compartments of a
trolley bag and the jeans pant worn by the accused. The seized
gold weighed 1990.800 grams and was valued at ₹1,98,18,414/-
(Rupees one crore ninety-eight lakh eighteen thousand four
hundred fourteen only). The accused failed to produce any valid
document in support of lawful possession and, in his statement
recorded under Section 108 of the Act, admitted that the gold
had been smuggled from Myanmar and was being transported to
Delhi for delivery. Consequently, the gold was seized under
Section 110 of the Act as being liable to confiscation, and the
accused was arrested on 27.06.2025 for the offence punishable
under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is
contended that the entire prosecution story is fabricated and
founded merely on suspicion, and that no recovery has been
made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. According
to the defence, the petitioner had gone to Platform No. 4 of
Patna Junction on 26.06.2025 only to receive a friend arriving
from Kolkata. Upon learning that the friend had missed the train,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
3/15
the petitioner was about to return when he was apprehended by
DRI officials without any lawful basis.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner was forcibly
taken to the DRI Office, Patna, where his signatures were
obtained on blank papers, which were subsequently converted
into a purported statement under Section 108 of the Act. The
defence asserts that none of the seized articles belong to the
petitioner except his mobile phone and Aadhaar card, and that he
has never claimed ownership of the recovered gold bullions. The
petitioner, it is contended, has been made a scapegoat without
any fault on his part. Emphasis is laid on the fact that he is a
permanent resident with deep-rooted ties to society, and there is
no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence,
particularly when the charge-sheet has already been filed.
6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of D.R.I..
Learned counsel for the D.R.I. places reliance on the counter-
affidavit and submits that the plea of innocence and absence of
criminal antecedents carries little weight in cases involving
grave economic offences. Acting upon specific intelligence,
officers of the DRI, Patna intercepted the petitioner from Train
No. 15658 (Brahmaputra Mail) in the presence of independent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
4/15
witnesses. The petitioner initially attempted to conceal his
identity and thereafter admitted that he was carrying 12 gold
bullions of foreign origin, weighing 1990.800 grams and valued
at ₹1,98,18,414/- (Rupees one crore ninety-eight lakh eighteen
thousand four hundred and fourteen only) without any valid
supporting documents. The contraband was recovered from
concealed compartments of his trolley bag and clothing and was
seized under Section 110 of the Act.
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for D.R.I.
that the petitioner’s statement recorded under Section 108 of the
Act contains a clear admission regarding the smuggling of the
gold from Myanmar for delivery in Delhi. The prosecution also
relies upon the petitioner’s travel details and mobile tower
location, which prima facie corroborated the prosecution
version. The allegations of coercion and false implication are
stated to be wholly unfounded, particularly as no such grievance
was raised before the Trial Court at the time of remand.
Considering the gravity of the offence and the enormous value of
the seized contraband, it is contended that there exists a
substantial likelihood of the petitioner absconding, indulging in
similar activities, or hampering the trial if released on bail. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XXIII, Patna, after due
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
5/15
consideration, has already rejected the petitioner’s bail
application by order dated 11.09.2025. Accordingly, dismissal of
the present bail petition is prayed for.
8. From perusal of the record and submission made on
behalf of both the parties, it appears that the petitioner is
accused of possessing of 12 gold bullions of foreign origin,
weighing 1990.800 grams and valued at ₹1,98,18,414/- (Rupees
one crore ninety-eight lakh eighteen thousand four hundred
fourteen only), allegedly smuggled into India and clandestinely
transported for delivery. The offence alleged is punishable under
Section 135(1)(b) of the Act, which prescribes stringent
punishment for dealing with goods liable to confiscation where
the market value exceeds the prescribed statutory limit of
Rupees one crore.
9. At this stage, it is apposite to advert to the statutory
restriction on grant of bail contained in Section 104 and Section
135 of the Act, which reads as under:
Section 104
“104. Power to arrest. (1) If an officer of customs
empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the
Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
6/15
Customs has reason to believe that any person in India or
within the Indian customs waters has committed an offence
punishable under section 132 or section 133 or section 135
or section 135A or section 136, he may arrest such person
and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for
such arrest.
(2) Every person arrested under sub-section (1)
shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken to a magistrate.
(3) Where an officer of customs has arrested any
person under sub-section (1), he shall, for the purpose of
releasing such person on bail or otherwise, have the same
powers and be subject to the same provisions as the officer-
in-charge of a police-station has and is subject to under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898).
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any offence
relating to
(a) prohibited goods; or
(b) evasion or attempted evasion of duty
exceeding fifty lakh rupees; or
(c) fraudulently availing of or attempting to
avail drawback or any exemption from duty
provided under this Act, where the amount of
drawback or exemption from duty exceeds
fifty lakh rupees, or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
7/15
(d) fraudulently obtaining an instrument for
the purpose s of th is Act or the Foreign
Trade (Development and Regulation) Act.
1992(22 of 1992), and such instrument is
utilised under this Act, where duty relatable
to such utilisation of instrument exceeds, fifty
lakh rupees, shall be cognizable.
(5) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (4),
all other offences under the Act shall be non-cognizable.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (2 of 1974) an offence
punishable under section 135 relating to-
(a) evasion or attempted evasion of duty
exceeding fifty lakh rupees; or
(b) prohibited goods notified under section 11
which are also notified under sub-clause (c)
of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 135
or
(c) import or export of any goods which
have not been declared in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and the market
price of which exceeds one crore rupees; or
(d) fraudulently availing of or attempt to
avail of drawback or any exemption from
duty provided under this Act., if the amount
of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
8/15
fifty lakh rupees or
(e) fraudulently obtaining an instrument for
the purposes of this Act or the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992(22
of 1922), and such instrument is utilised
under this Act, where duly relatable to such
utilisation of instrument exceeds fifty lakh
rupees, shall be non-bailable.
(7) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6),
all other offences under this Act shall be bailable.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the expression
"instrument" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in
Explanation 1 to section 28-AAA."
Section 135
“135. Evasion of duty or prohibitions (1) Without
prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if
any person—
(a) is in relation to any goods in any way
knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of value or in any
fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty
chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being
imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being
in force with respect to such goods; or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
9/15
(b) acquires possession of or is in any way
concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring,
keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other
manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has
reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section
111 or Section 113, as the case may be; or
(c) attempts to export any goods which he knows
or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under
Section 113; or
(d) fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of
drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this
Act in connection with 1 [export of goods; or
(e) obtains an instrument from any authority by
fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts
and such instrument has been utilised by such person or any
other person,
he shall be punishable,—
(i) in the case of an offence relating to,—
(A) any goods the market price of which
exceeds one crore of rupees; or
(B) the evasion or attempted evasion of duty
exceeding 3 [fifty lakh] of rupees; or
(C) such categories of prohibited goods as
the Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, specify; or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
10/15
(D) fraudulently availing of or attempting to
avail of drawback or any exemption from
duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of
drawback or exemption from duty exceeds 3
[fifty lakh] 4 [of rupees; or] with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
seven years and with fine: 5
(E) obtaining an instrument from any
authority by fraud, collusion, willful
misstatement or suppression of facts and such
instrument has been utilised by any person,
where the duty relatable to utilisation of the
instrument exceeds fifty lakh rupees.
Provided that in the absence of special and
adequate reasons to the contrary to be
recorded in the judgment of the court, such
imprisonment shall not be for less than one
year;
(ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) If any person convicted of an offence
under this section or under sub-section (1) of
section 136 is again convicted of an offence
under this section, then, he shall be
punishable for the second and for every
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
11/15
subsequent offence with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to seven years and
with fine:
Provided that in the absence of special and
adequate reasons to the contrary to be
recorded in the judgment of the court such
imprisonment shall not be for less than 7
[one year].
(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and
(2), the following shall not be considered as
special and adequate reasons for awarding a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less
than 5 [one year], namely:—
(i) the fact that the accused has been
convicted for the first time for an offence
under this Act;
(ii) the fact that in any proceeding under this
Act, other than a prosecution, the accused
has been ordered to pay a penalty or the
goods which are the subject matter of such
proceedings have been ordered to be
confiscated or any other action has been
taken against him for the same act which
constitutes the offence;
(iii) the fact that the accused was not the
principal offender and was acting merely as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
12/15
a carrier of goods or otherwise was a
secondary party to the commission of the
offence;
(iv) the age of the accused.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the
expression "instrument" shall have the same meaning as assigned to
it in the Explanation 1 to section 28AAA.”
A plain reading of the above provision that is section
104(6)(c) of Customs Act “Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an
offence punishable under section 135 shall be non-bailable,—
(c) where the market price of the goods involved exceeds one
crore rupees” , leaves no manner of doubt that where the value
of the goods involved exceeds ₹1 crore, the offence under
Section 135 is rendered non-bailable by legislative mandate. In
the present case, the value of the seized gold is admittedly
₹1,98,18,414/-, which is far in excess of the statutory threshold.
The offence, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of Section
104(6)(c), warranting a heightened degree of caution while
considering the prayer for bail.
10. Section 135 of the Act criminalises not only the act
of smuggling but also the conscious possession, concealment,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
13/15
transportation or dealing with goods which the accused knows or
has reason to believe are liable to confiscation. The recovery of
gold of foreign origin, the manner of its concealment in a trolley
bag and clothing and the absence of any valid document in
support of lawful possession, prima facie attracts the ingredients
of Section 135(1)(b) of the Act.
11. The prosecution has placed reliance on the
statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the
Act, wherein he is stated to have admitted that the gold was
smuggled from Myanmar and was being transported to Delhi.
The legal position regarding the admissibility of such statements
is well settled. In Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India 1995
Supp (4) SCC 663, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a
statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act is admissible in
evidence and can form the basis of conviction, provided it is
voluntary. The Court clarified that officers of the Customs
Department are not police officers within the meaning of Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
12. The said principle has been reiterated by the
Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Commissioner of
Customs v. Ghanshyam Prasad Gupta (2010) SCC OnLine Pat
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
14/15
126, wherein it was held that statements recorded under Section
108 stand on a distinct footing and carry evidentiary value unless
shown, at the threshold, to be involuntary. In the present case,
the petitioner did not raise any contemporaneous grievance of
coercion at the time of remand, rendering the allegation of
forced confession, prima facie, an afterthought.
13. It is well settled that at the stage of consideration of
bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous
appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
The defence pleas relating to false implication and absence of
conscious possession are matters to be tested at trial.
14. Having regard to the statutory embargo under
Section 104(6)(c) of the Act, the gravity of the offence, the
substantial value of the seized contraband, and the prima facie
material on record, including the statement recorded under
Section 108 of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail.
Offences involving large-scale smuggling of high-value goods
have ramifications beyond the individual accused, as such acts
adversely impact the country’s economic framework and cause
serious loss to public revenue. Keeping in view the legislative
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76916 of 2025(4) dt.03-02-2026
15/15
intent to curb such economic offences and the larger public
interest involved, this Court finds no justification to exercise
discretion in favour of the petitioner at this stage.
15. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Pankaj/-
Alok Verma/-
AFR
U T
Checking your session…