Delhi’s Patiala House Court granted bail to Yash Tekwani, a man accused of smuggling e-cigarettes, reiterating the established legal principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”

The court highlighted that detention should not be extended solely based on accusations, aligning with constitutional safeguards and judicial precedents.

The case [DRI v. Yash Tekwani] emerged following a search operation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on August 23, 2024.

The operation led to the seizure of a significant quantity of e-cigarettes and foreign cigarettes.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Orders Action Against Illegal Charges for ‘Pottukuthal’ Ritual at Sabarimala

Tekwani was subsequently arrested the next day, on August 24, 2024. The prosecution relied heavily on his statement allegedly obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, to substantiate their case.

However, the court, presided over by Judge Abhishek Kumar, observed that Tekwani’s continued detention was unnecessary.

“The recovery has already been effected, and the accused is in custody since 24.08.2024; any further custody of the accused is not required in the present case,” the judge noted.

He further highlighted that extending custody in such circumstances amounts to punitive punishment, which contradicts the mandate of law when considering bail applications.

Also Read: Ola Electric Faces Regulatory Action from CCPA Over 6,000 Consumer Complaints

Counsel’s Arguments and Fundamental Rights

Representing Tekwani, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, along with his team of lawyers, argued that the arrest was unlawful and violated Tekwani’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty.

They contended that the DRI had no authority to investigate matters related to e-cigarettes, citing the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019.

According to the defense, this special law takes precedence over the Customs Act, 1962 in cases involving the smuggling of e-cigarettes.

The defense also argued that the statement obtained from the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act was given under duress.

They maintained that this statement could not be the sole basis for denying bail, as the law mandates a balanced consideration of all factors involved in the case.

Also Read: Delhi Court Dismisses Petition Against Jhansi Rani Statue at Shahi Idgah Park

Prosecution’s Stand and Court’s Observations

The DRI opposed Tekwani’s bail application, arguing that the case involved serious charges related to an illegal trade network and the smuggling of prohibited items.

They asserted that the DRI has jurisdiction to investigate e-cigarette smuggling, and Tekwani’s statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act held substantial evidentiary value.

However, the court, while acknowledging the relevance of the statement, rejected the prosecution’s argument, stating that it could not be the sole determinant in deciding bail.

“There is no doubt that the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act is significant and relevant. However, it is not sufficient to deny bail, for which all factors are to be considered. The gravity of the offense or the nature of economic offenses cannot, by itself, bar the grant of bail,” Judge Kumar remarked.

The court highlighted that economic offenses, while serious, should not result in an automatic denial of bail unless other compelling factors are present.

In this case, the court saw no reason to extend Tekwani’s custody, particularly since the search and recovery had already taken place and further investigation did not require his prolonged detention.

Also Read: Jammu & Kashmir High Court: No Discrimination in Bail for Foreign Nationals

Bail Conditions and Legal Precedents

Ultimately, the court granted Tekwani bail, directing him to furnish a bail bond of ₹1 lakh along with other standard conditions.

The court also reiterated that the Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the principle that bail should be the rule, not jail, especially when mere accusations without substantial grounds are involved.

With these observations, Tekwani’s release from jail was ordered, and the court also underscored the necessity of applying constitutional safeguards when determining bail in economic offenses.

Bench Details:

• Judge: Abhishek Kumar
• Case Title: DRI v. Yash Tekwani
• Court: Patiala House Court, New Delhi

Parties Involved:

• Accused: Yash Tekwani
• Prosecution: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
• Defense Counsel: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, assisted by Advocates Gautam Panjwani, Prabhav Ralli, Aashna Singh, Priyanka Kalita, and Ishpreet Kaur