Delhi court grants bail to man accused of smuggling e-cigarettes

Delhi's Patiala House Court recently granted bail to a man accused of smuggling e-cigarettes [DRI v. Yash Tekwani].

Judge Abhishek Kumar opined that the accused man's statement to the customs authorities about his alleged involvement in the crime is not enough to prevent his release on bail.

The court proceeded to grant the accused bail after reiterating the principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception, and after noting that his continued detention was not necessary.

"...the recovery has already been effected and the accused is in custody since 24.08.2024, any further custody of the accused is not required in the present case... time and again it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and the accused cannot be kept behind the bars solely on the basis that an offence has been committed as the same acts as punitive punishment which is not the mandate of the law while considering the bail applications," the judge observed.

The court directed the accused to furnish a bail bond of ₹1 lakh for his release from jail, among other bail conditions.

The accused man was arrested after a search operation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on August 23 at various locations. The search led to the discovery and seizure of a large quantity of e-cigarettes and foreign cigarettes.

The next day, on August 24, the accused was arrested, and his statement was allegedly taken under pressure by DRI officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The applicant was accused of being involved in an illegal trade network and of smuggling e-cigarettes.

His counsel argued that the arrest was unlawful and violated the accused man's fundamental rights under Article 21 (life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.

He contended that the DRI did not have the authority to investigate cases involving e-cigarettes, as the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, being a special law, takes precedence over the Customs Act, 1962 in this matter.

The DRI opposed the bail application, arguing that the case involved serious allegations and citing the accused's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. They also asserted that the DRI has jurisdiction to investigate the smuggling of e-cigarettes, which are prohibited items.

While rejecting DRI's contentions, the court observed that while the accused man's statement may hold some evidentiary value, it cannot form the sole basis for deciding on the question of bail.

"There is no doubt that statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a significant statement and is relevant also. However, the same is not sufficient to decide the bail, for which all the factors are to be taken into consideration. It has been held in number of cases by the Apex Court that economic offences/gravity of the offence cannot be the sole criteria to deny the bail and there is nothing under the law, which bars the grant of bail in such cases," the court said.

With these observations, the court granted bail to the accused applicant.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa assisted by Advocates Gautam Panjwani, Prabhav Ralli, Aashna Singh, Priyanka Kalita, and Ishpreet Kaur appeared for the applicant.

[Read Order]