Illegal export of antique idol of Lord Vishnu: Court Grants Bail to accused

Superintendent of Customs Vs Udit Jain (Special Court For Economic Offences: At Bangalore)

1. On 18-10-2021 the accused was arrested by the Inspector of Customs, Delhi Customs Preventive at Delhi and he was produced before the Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi and obtained transit warrant and then the accused was brought to Bangalore on 19-10­2021 and after recording his statement and is produced before this court on 20-10-2021 by the complainant. The allegation against the accused is that he was illegally exporting the antique which is said to be the idol of Lord Vishnu. On being satisfied with the grounds urged in the remand application, the accused was sent to the judicial custody.

2. The accused filed bail application under section 437 of Cr.P.C. seeking the regular bail on the ground that he is innocent and has not committed the alleged offence. There is no material to the effect that the accused participated in the commission of alleged offence. The idol in question is not antique as alleged by the complainant, but only antique look is given to the same so as to fetch more prices in the international market. The alleged report/certificate given by the concerned authority stating that the idol is antique is not in accordance with law. The accused is the permanent resident of Delhi, thus, the apprehension that accused may flee or obstruct administration of justice in any manner has no basis. The offence alleged against the accused is though non-bailable, it is not punishable with death or life imprisonment. The accused has no bad antecedents. Accused is ready and willing to abide by all such terms and conditions likely to be imposed.

3. The complainant filed the objection by reiterating the case and contended that the offence committed by the Accused is punishable up to 7 years. The offence committed by the accused is serious in nature. The accused did not co-operate with the investigation process and he failed to appear before the I.O and dishonoured the summons issued to him on several occasions. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

4. Heard the Ld. counsel of the accused and Spl.P.P. Perused the bail application and the objection filed thereto and materials on record. The points that arise for my determination are:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.