Reiterating the settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” Maharashtra Court, has granted bail to three acccused arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in connection with the alleged import of restricted fireworks worth approximately ₹2.82 crore through misdeclaration in customs documents.

The common order was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court no. 2, Uran, S.A. Kulkarni, in connection with a case registered by the DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit (Nhava Sheva-II) under Sections 135(1)(a)(i) (A), 135(1)(a)(i)(C), 135(1) (b) (i) (A) and 135(1)(b)(i)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

Alleged Misdeclaration of Fireworks

Prosecution alleged that, the DRI had received specific intelligence that a consignment imported in the name of M/s Infinity Expert had been falsely declared as manual air pumps used for inflating balloons. Upon examination, officials allegedly found that the container instead contained fireworks and firecrackers, which fall within the category of restricted goods under the Customs Act.

The agency alleged that the market value of the seized goods was approximately ₹2.82 crore.

The three accused were arrested for offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A), 135(1)(a)(i)(C), 135(1)(b)(i)(A), and 135(1)(b)(i)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Defence: Goods Already Seized, No Further Recovery Required

Adv. Chirag Shetty along with Adv Anam Khan, Counsel for the accused, argued that the imported goods were restricted and not prohibited, and therefore the gravity of the allegations had been overstated.

It was further submitted that the applicants were neither the owners nor the importers of the seized goods, that the entire consignment had already been taken into custody by the DRI, and that no further recovery remained to be made. The defence also contended that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and there was no apprehension of their absconding or tampering with evidence.

Reliance was also placed on judicial precedents governing the grant of bail.

DRI Opposed Bail

The DRI opposed the bail applications, contending that the accused had played active roles in facilitating the import of restricted fireworks through deliberate misdeclaration of the cargo. It argued that the allegations disclosed a serious economic offence and that the investigation was still in progress.

The agency further submitted that releasing the accused at this stage could adversely affect the ongoing investigation.

Court’s Observations

After considering the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the Court noted that the allegedly offending goods had already been seized by the investigating agency.

The Court observed that the prosecution had not demonstrated any specific circumstances necessitating the continued detention of the applicants. It also recorded that the accused had expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by conditions imposed by the Court.

Holding that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging their custody, the Court observed that the settled principles governing grant of bail favoured the applicants.

“Bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” the Court observed while allowing the applications.

Bail Conditions

The Court directed that each of the three accused be released on executing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with one or two solvent sureties.

The accused have also been directed to:

• Appear before the DRI on the 1st and 15th of every month for six months;
• Cooperate with the investigation;
• Refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses;
• Not leave India without prior permission of the Court and the investigating agency;
• Furnish their residential addresses and contact details to the Investigating Officer; and
• Deposit their passports with the Investigating Officer until completion of the investigation.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: CJI Surya Kant Rebukes ‘Reckless’ Media Reports, Says No Plea Was Filed on CJP Protest Police Action