Smt Madhu Devi Verma Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court granted conditional bail to Smt Madhu Devi Verma in Case Crime No. 0007 of 2026, involving Section 135(1)(B) of the Customs Act. According to the applicant’s counsel, DRI intercepted her carrying 42 gold bars weighing 4983.360 grams and valued at ₹7,11,45,521. Counsel submitted that she was only a carrier transporting the gold pursuant to a GST receipt, that the maximum sentence was seven years, and that further detention was unnecessary because the complaint had been filed. DRI opposed bail, alleging that the bars bore foreign markings and had entered the country through the border, but did not dispute the filing of the complaint. The Court noted that no criminal antecedents or failure to cooperate had been shown.
Nor had DRI produced material indicating that the applicant would flee, intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, repeat offences or otherwise obstruct justice. Referring to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, grounded in Article 21, the Court also considered that the applicant was a woman, had been in custody since 23.07.2026, faced a maximum sentence of seven years, and that the gold remained in the opposite party’s custody. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, it directed release on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions concerning attendance, cooperation, non-interference with evidence and witnesses, non-repetition of offences, prior court permission to leave India, and written notification of any change of residential address. Breach would permit the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.
Cases Discussed
- Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Supreme Court). Relied upon for the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, particularly in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Shahi, learned counsel for DRI and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was intercepted by the DRI carrying 42 gold bars weighing 4983.360 grams valuing Rs.7,11,45,521/-. The applicant is only the carrier and was taking the gold in pursuance to the GST receipt, which is at page 39 of the paper book. The maximum sentence in the present case is seven years. Complaint has been filed as such there is no requirement of any further detention of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.7.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the DRI opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant was caught with 42 gold bars while she was travelling. The gold bar was having mark of foreign country and was brought into the country through the border. However, he could not dispute the fact that complaint has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for DRI has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.
6. It is not the case of the DRI that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.
7. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.
8. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned counsel for DRI that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned counsel for DRI.
10. Learned counsel for DRI has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.
10A. It is to be seen that the applicant is a lady and the maximum sentence in the present case is seven years. The trial is by a special court. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 23.7.2026. The gold bars is in custody of opposite party.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant Smt. Madhu Devi Verma involved in Case Crime No.0007 of 2026, under Sections 135(1)(B) of Custom Act, Police Station D.R.I., District Varanasi released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
