Delhi's Patiala House Court Grants Bail To A Man Accused In Smuggling Of E-Cigarettes

Delhi's Patiala House Court recently allowed bail to a man accused in the case of smuggling e-cigarettes. 

The case arose from a search operation conducted by the DRI on 23.08.2024 at several premises, culminating in the recovery and seizure of substantial quantities of e-cigarettes and foreign cigarettes. Subsequently, on 24.08.2024, the Applicant was arrested, and his statement was recorded under duress by DRI officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Allegations were levelled against the Applicant suggesting his alleged involvement in an illegal trade network and the smuggling of e-cigarettes. 

The counsel representing the Applicant argued that his arrest was illegal and violative of his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. They further contended that the DRI lacked the jurisdiction to investigate matters pertaining to e-cigarettes, given that the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, being a special law, supersedes the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 in this context. In a well-reasoned order dated 05.10.2024, the  ACJM granted bail to the Applicant recognizing that his further incarceration was unwarranted. 

The Court held that while the Applicant’s statement may carry some evidentiary value, it alone could not form the sole basis for determining his bail application, necessitating a broader evaluation of the facts. The ACJM emphasized that economic offences/ gravity of offences, cannot solely dictate the denial of bail, as established by a catena of judicial precedents. 

Furthermore, adhering to the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” as upheld in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [AIR 2021 SC 830] and Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577], the Hon’ble Court found no justification for prolonging the Applicant’s detention, thereby granting him bail subject to conditions. Representing the Applicant was a team of esteemed counsel led by Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, assisted and briefed by Adv. Gautam Panjwani, Adv. Prabhav Ralli, Adv. Aashna Singh, Adv. Priyanka Kalita, and Adv. Ishpreet Kaur.

Case: Yash Tekwani v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)