Smuggling gold without any threat to economic stability of India not terrorist act under UAPA: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere smuggling of gold which does not threaten the economic security or monetary stability of India will not amount to a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). .A Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna, therefore, granted bail to nine men accused of being involved in smuggling of 83.6Kg gold which was seized at New Delhi Railway Station in 2020."...possession, use, production, transfer of counterfeit currency or coin is per-se illegal and an offence, however, production, possession, use etc. of 'gold' is not per-se illegal or an offence... Thus mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act," the Court said in its judgment. .The High Court was dealing with the bail appeal of nine men who were taken into custody by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in August 2020 after being caught with over 500 gold biscuits (83.6Kg). They were travelling in Dibrugarh-New Delhi Rajdhani Express using fake documents.While eight of them -- Raikiran Balaso Gaikwad, Saddam Ramjan Patel, Dileep Laxman Patil, Pawan Kumar Mohan Gaikwad, Avadhut Arun Vibhute, Sachin Appaso Hasbe, Abhijeet Nand Kumar Babar and Yogesh Hanmant Rupnar -- were arrested on spot by the DRI, ninth accused, Vaibhav Sampat More, was taken into custody later based on the disclosure statements. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) later took over the case and charged them for offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)..Their bail was denied by the lower court in May 2021 by a special court. .The appeals argued that the prosecution had no evidence against them except the statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act which can't be considered and were inadmissible in a trial under the UAPA. The counsel argued that there was no material on record to show that the gold was procured from foreign. .Appearing for NIA, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of bringing the amendment to Section 15 of the UAPA by introducing Section 15(1)(a)(iiia). He said that the amendment was brought due to the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and in this report report, it was clearly stated that gold is a universally accepted currency which can be traded anonymously and such transactions would be difficult to trace and track and would cause serious damage to the economic security of the country. He, therefore, claimed that a larger conspiracy to commit a terrorist act was committed by the appellants by disturbing the economic stability of the country and in view of the seriousness of the offence, bail should not be granted to the appellants. .However, the Court noted that in the present case no death has been caused therefore Clause 'b' of Section 16 of UAPA, which provides for sentence of minimum imprisonment for a period of 5 years which may extend to life imprisonment, will not be applicable..It therefore granted bail to all the accused subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety of ₹1 lakh. They were also directed to submit their passports with the trial court and not leave the country without prior permission. .Senior Advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Mohit Mathur along with advocates Somesh Tiwari, Kartika Sharma, Chirag Madan, Kaveesh Nair, Rahul Raheja, Gaurav Prakash, Rohit Raheja, Supriya Shekhar, Tarun Khanna and Vinayan Chithale appeared for the appellants. ASG SV Raju, SPP Rahul Tyagi with advocates Aashish Chojar, Deepak Malik, Anshuman Singh, Ankit Bhatia and Harsh Paul Singh appeared for the NIA. .[Read Judgment]