Gulam Mohammad Beigh Vs Inspector of Customs

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 10 Jul 2006 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22139-M of 2006 (2006) 07 P&H CK 0086
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22139-M of 2006

Hon'ble Bench

Rajive Bhalla, J

Advocates

Veneet Sharma, for the Appellant; Daya Chaudhary, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the Respondent

Acts Referred
  • Customs Act, 1962 - Section 11, 135, 77
  • Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 - Regulation 3(1)
  • Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Section 3(3)

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Rajive Bhalla, J.@mdashPrayer in this petition is, for grant of regular bail in a complaint case, registered under Sections 11, 77 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Regulation 3(1)(e) of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 and Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.

2. The petitioner, was arrested while crossing over to India from Pakistan. Rs. 5.00 lacs Indian currency was recovered from his possession. He was unable to show any documents to justify possession of Rs. 5.00 lacs.

3. Counsel for the respondent states that they would conclude their evidence, within a period of three months, from the next date of hearing.

4. The petitioner claims that he had gone to Pakistan, to arrange funds for his ailing child.

5. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner was transporting Indian currency from Pakistan, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out, to release the petitioner on bail.

6. However, in view of the aforementioned statement made by Ms. Daya Chaudhary, Assistant Solicitor General of India, on instructions from Mr. J.P. Singh, Inspector, Customs, Amritsar, the learned trial Court is directed, to make every endeavour, to conclude the trial within a period of three months, from the next date of hearing. In case, the trial does not conclude, within a period of three months, the learned trial Court shall release the petitioner on bail, after taking heavy surety and impose such other conditions, as it may deem appropriate. It is, however, made clear that in case delay in the trial is attributable to the petitioner, he shall not be released on bail.

This petition stands disposed of accordingly.

From The Blog
Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Read More