Anil Mahajan vs Commissioner Of Customs & Anr. on 4 February, 2000
A perusal of the order in Sanjay Verma Vs. State shows that the learned Judge relied on the observations of the Supreme Court to take the view that economic offences are placed even at a higher pedestal than murder. Bail was refused by the learned Judge mainly on the ground that the petitioner therein was
alleged to have stated that earlier also he used to help his father in the latter's smuggling activities and was involved in the seizure of 120 foreign marked gold biscuits and, therefore, he was likely to indulge in offences of a similar nature if released on bail. In this context it should
be mentioned that if the Legislature wanted the Courts to treat economic offences differently from other offences in the matter of granting bail,
they could have made special provisions specifying additional limitations on granting of bail as in the case of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In the absence of such special provisions the general principles governing the grant of bail under Sections 437
and Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code will apply even in a case involving an economic offence. It is significant that even though additional limitations on grant of bail have not been specified in legislations like the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, considering the nature of the offences and in the interest of society and the State, in addition to the provisions for sentence and penalty, provisions have been made under Section 111 of the Customs Act and Section 63 of FERA for confiscation of the goods/currency/security/money/property in respect of which the offence was committed.