JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest/advance/anticipatory bail. 2. Offences alleged are under Sections 420, 417, 465 IPC and Section 135 of the Customs Act. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as against Pradeepkumar, a Customs Official, Chennai, petitioner complained of demanding illegal gratification of Rs.1000/-from him in connection with his business. The said official was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In the circumstances, to wreck vengeance, the customs officials are implicating him in this case. In his absence, on 26.2.2014, in his house, under the guise of conducting a raid, the Customs Officials have threatened his family members. In the circumstances, petitioner seeks advance bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Customs submitted that petitioner is a kingpin in the smuggling of huge quantity of red sanders. Statement under Section 108 Customs Act have been recorded from several persons. There is incriminating information about him. He is already involved in three prior cases of smuggling of red sanders. Two cases were adjudicated. Penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs respectively have been imposed on him. Petitioner is required to be interrogated. He is not cooperating with the prosecuting agency. He is absconding. Pradeepkumar case has nothing to do with the present smuggling case. Whenever petitioner is faced with similar grim situation, he used to make similar complaints against the officials to deter them from their discharge of duties. 5. In view of the contentions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have directed the department to produce the entire case- file. Accordingly, the learned Special Public Prosecutor produced the entire file. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the anticipatory bail petition and in the counter filed by the department and the entire case-file. 7. Exporting of red sanders is prohibited. It is illegal. Red sanders carry huge price tag in certain foreign countries. In such circumstances, red sanders are exported by smugglers misdescribing them in the shipment bill as some permitted items. Customs Officials are eyeing on these smugglers. 8. On 12.2.2014, specific intelligence of smuggling of red sanders has been received by the Customs from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(D.R.I),Chennai. The Customs Officials swung into action. 9. A container containing some suspected items was detained at the Chennai Port. Customs Officials are eyeing on these smugglers. 8. On 12.2.2014, specific intelligence of smuggling of red sanders has been received by the Customs from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(D.R.I),Chennai. The Customs Officials swung into action. 9. A container containing some suspected items was detained at the Chennai Port. It's exporter is M/s.Jayam Plast Co., Chennai. In the shipment bill, plastic granules has been mentioned. However, on examination, it found contained 11945kgs of suspected red color wooden logs. Forest Officials confirmed them as red sanders. It was valued at Rs.1,19,45,000/-. 10. In this connection, Palani, the driver of the container was examined and his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act was recorded. It revealed that plastic granules were changed and red sanders wood were stuffed in a godown near Ernavoor Bridge. His statement further revealed that Akbar @ Hakim, Maniverma are concerned in this smuggling activity. The driver was detained. 11. Statement of Maniverma was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act. It revealed that Akbar @ Hakim, a neighbor of Suresh (petitioner) came into contact with Maniverma, encouraged him in his involvement of smuggling of red sanders for monetary gain. He had also stated that he had seen Suresh and Akbar together and they have initiated him into this nefarious activity. Referring to the photographs maintained by the department he identified them Suresh and Akbar. Maniverma was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. 12. Gankadharan, proprietor of M/s.Jayam Plast Co., Chennai was examined. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded. It revealed that he is a painter from Villupuram. He came into contact with Suresh and Akbar @ Hakim. Suresh rented out a room bearing Old No.217, New No.84, Room No.9-A, situate in Angappan Street, Chennai from one Jabarullah and also obtained an IE Code both in the name of Gankadharan. Gankadharan admitted he having received amounts on three occasions totalling Rs.30,000/-from Suresh. 13. Landlord Jabarullah in his statement stated that Suresh and one Rajan came along with Gankadharan and Suresh rented out his premises in the name of Gankadharan for M/s.Jayam Plast Co. He had seen them in his premises on few occasions and thereafter it was found locked. Thus, Gankadharan is no more than a mask of Suresh. 14. 13. Landlord Jabarullah in his statement stated that Suresh and one Rajan came along with Gankadharan and Suresh rented out his premises in the name of Gankadharan for M/s.Jayam Plast Co. He had seen them in his premises on few occasions and thereafter it was found locked. Thus, Gankadharan is no more than a mask of Suresh. 14. When the Customs Officials went to search Akbar's residence at Door No.14/7, Cheriyan Nagar, First Cross Street, New Washermentpet, Chennai-81, which is in the vicinity of Suresh's residence, it was found locked. Akbar went underground. At last, the department served summons on Suresh for interrogation. But, he did not respond. He did not allow them to search his residence. In this backdrop of the matter, Suresh seeks anticipatory bail. 15. Petitioner is already involved in three cases of smuggling of red sanders. In two cases, adjudication orders were passed. The department imposed on him a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs respectively. According to the department, the present case is 4th case. It relates to smuggling of red sanders wood. Interrogation of several persons leads to Suresh. Suresh need to be interrogated. There is no cooperation from him. Already he is involved in similar cases. 16. In considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to consider the seriousness of the accusations, availability of incriminating materials, its nature, magnitude of the offence alleged, past activities and prior cases as against the accused and the need for his custodial interrogation. When these factors are as against the petitioner then it will not be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. In this case, there is strong prima facie case for the department as against the petitioner. 17. In view of the foregoings, this court is of the view that this case is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 18. Thus, this petition is dismissed.