Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 356 (KER)

Sahal v. Senior Intelligence Officer

2019-04-12

SUNIL THOMAS

body2019
ORDER : Petitioner herein apprehending arrest in DRI/CAU/VIII/48/EnQ-01/INT on the file of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, has approached this court. 2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received an information regarding the smuggling of filter cigarettes of foreign origin concealed along with the declared cargo imported by the importer through seaport. The officers of the DRI inspected the consignment and found that it contained 30,24,000/- cigarettes of foreign origin totaling to value of Rs.4,23,36,000/-. Containers worth Rs. 9 lakhs were also sealed. Crime was registered against four persons. Allegation against the petitioner is that he is also involved in a smuggling of the alleged cigarettes in connivance with importers. He was issued with a notice under S.108 of the Customs Act requesting him to appear before the authorities. Apprehending that he is likely to be arrested on the above crime, he seeks bail. 3. The specific contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that, petitioner is absolutely innocent and that though he was summoned invoking Section 108 of the Customs Act, he apprehends that immediately after his questioning he is liable to be arrested. It was contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that 13 the petitioner is sought to be falsely implicated and he is not connected with the above crime. It was also contended that he is sought to be implicated on the basis of the confession of the co-accused. 4. It seems that the petitioner moved the court below and sought bail. The court below took the view that anticipatory bail application was premature in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal & Ors. 2008 KHC 698, Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 940 and Kishin S.Loungani v. Union of India and Ors., 2017 (1) KHC 355 . 5. It was vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel that the object of the petitioner’s summoning is to coerce him to cull out materials against him and thereafter to arrest him. It cannot be said that he is not a person apprehending arrest in the above circumstances. 6. Opposing the application, learned Special Prosecutor contended that the settled legal position is that he is not an accused and application for anticipatory bail is premature. It cannot be said that he is not a person apprehending arrest in the above circumstances. 6. Opposing the application, learned Special Prosecutor contended that the settled legal position is that he is not an accused and application for anticipatory bail is premature. It seems that in Ramesh Chandra Mehta’s case (supra), the Supreme Court had held that the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act is intended to question a person and at that stage he cannot be stated to be an accused. 7. In Kishin S.Loungani’s case (supra) an identical question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court. Contention of the learned counsel is that both the applications dealt with a totally different situation and does not relate a person who is summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act apprehending arrest. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padam Narain Aggarwal’s case had specifically dealt with granting of anticipatory bail to a person summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act and held that it was premature in nature. In the light of the above settled legal decision, I find that anticipatory bail application is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed.