JOIN USMerely smuggling gold not terrorist activity, says Delhi HC; grants bail to 9 held under UAPA
In a significant judgement on Friday, the Delhi High Court has declared mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of the country cannot be described as a terrorist act.
A bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna said 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.
"Even import of gold is not prohibited but restricted subject to prescribed quantity on payment of duty. Thus, mere smuggling of gold without any connection whatsoever to threatening economic security or monetary stability of India cannot be a terrorist act," the bench added.
The court granted bail to Vaibhav Sampat More and eight others arrested in August, 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for possessing over 83 kg of gold smuggled from Assam to New Delhi in a train for allegedly furthering terrorist activities and also threatening the economic security and damaging the monetary stability of India. They were first arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and subsequently the NIA took over the case.
The appellants challenged the order by a Special Court to deny them bail in May, 2021. In their plea, they claimed there was no evidence to suggest the gold was smuggled from a foreign country and there was no evidence except statements made under the Customs Act which were inadmissible for trial under the UAPA.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju for NIA opposed the bail, contending they tried to disturb economic stability of the country. He cited report of the Financial Action Task Force which stated that gold is a universally accepted currency, can be transferred anonymously and transactions are difficult to trace and verify. Gold is a form of global currency and also acts as a medium for exchange in criminal transactions.
The court, however, referred to Section 16 of the UAPA to point out since no death has been caused here, clause (b) which provides discretion to the trial court to award sentence between five years jail to life imprisonment, would be applicable here. It provided bail to the appellants on personal and surety bond of Rs 1 lakh each with other conditions like they would surrender their passport, report their presence to jurisdictional police station every month and intimate their residential address and mobile number.