JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned Advocate, Ms. Sancheti, waives service for Respondent No.1-DRI and learned APP, Mr. Patel, waives service for Respondent No.2-State. 2. This is an application by the petitioner, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the inquiry, being F.No. DRI/AZU/CI/ENQ-58(INT-18)/2023, as he apprehends his arrest. 3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution in capsulized form are that the officers of Respondent No.1 received an intelligence in-put that container Nos. DRYU9982719, NLLU4207620 and TGHU9180934 are carrying some contraband goods, instead of the goods, which were declared in the Import General Manifest (‘IGM’, in short). On receipt of such an intelligence in-put, the consignments in question were ordered to be put on hold, till the transshipment permission is given by the Customs Authority. It, however, appears that out of the total three containers, two containers bearing Nos. DRYU9982719 and NLLU4207620, were transferred to Inland Container Depot (‘ICD’, hereinafter), Bangalore, whereas, the container bearing No. TGHU9180934 was transferred to Chennai Port. 3.1 Subsequently, when the containers in question were traced and were opened, they were found to be carrying areca or beetle nuts, instead of grinding wheels, as was declared in IGM and bill of lading by its importer, namely M.S.K. Engineering Works, and therefore, the same came to be confiscated, as per the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (‘Customs Act’, hereinafter). 3.2 Pursuant to the same, Respondent No.1-DRI initiated, as stated above, an inquiry. During the course of recording of statement of one Mr. Satish Kumar T., in connection with the aforesaid inquiry, he admitted that he received the copy of bill of lading on Whatsapp through one Mr. Aakash, who, according to Mr. Satish Kumar T. is a native of Gujarat, but, is currently residing at Delhi. Mr. Satish Kumar T. also allegedly admitted that he had given the credentials, i.e. IEC. GST. Etc., of M.S.K. Engineering Works to said Mr. Aakash. According to Mr. Satish Kumar T., he also had received phone calls, inquiring about consignment of areca or beetle Nuts, from one Mr. Abbas, i.e. the present petitioner. Mr. Satish Kumar T. is also alleged to have admitted that he knew that areca or beetle Nuts were being imported, under the pretext of importing grinding wheels in the name of M.S.K. Engineering Works. Mr. Abbas, i.e. the present petitioner. Mr. Satish Kumar T. is also alleged to have admitted that he knew that areca or beetle Nuts were being imported, under the pretext of importing grinding wheels in the name of M.S.K. Engineering Works. Mr. Satish Kumar T. also allegedly admitted that he was promised by Mr. Aakash to be paid Rs.10,00,000/- per container. However, according to Mr. Satish Kumar T., he has never met either Mr. Aakash, who claimed to be a native of Gujarat, or Mr. Abbas, who also claimed to be a resident of State of Gujarat. 3.3 Pursuant to the statement given by Mr. Satish Kumar T., as mentioned herein above, a private complaint is lodged by an officer of Respondent No.1-DRI, namely Mr. Anil Kumar, before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Thereafter, Respondent No.1-DRI issued as many as five summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which are produced as Annexure-F to this petition, to the present petitioner to remain present for giving his statement and to supply relevant documents. However, since, the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested, he has not appeared before Respondent No.1-DRI, so far. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Barot, appearing with learned Advocate, Ms. Chokshi, for the petitioner referred to the facts of the case on hand and submitted that the name of the petitioner is disclosed, in this case, from the statement given by one Mr. Satish Kumar T. during the course of inquiry. It was, further, submitted that the petitioner is a businessman and on perusal of the statement of Mr. Satish Kumar T., at the most, the role that can be attributed to the present petitioner is that he had made inquires about the consignment of areca or beetle nuts, which was allegedly being imported under the pretext of importing grinding wheels, so as to evade customs duty. It was submitted that being a businessman, the petitioner might have inquired about the consignment of areca or beetle nuts, but, by that act, itself, it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act. 4.1 It was submitted that, even as per the case of the prosecution, it was Mr. 4.1 It was submitted that, even as per the case of the prosecution, it was Mr. Satish Kumar T., who had made arrangements for the credentials of M.S.K. Engineering Works to import the areca or beetle nuts, under the pretext of importing grinding wheels. Mr. Satish Kumar T. was assigned work of customs clearance and other related documents. It was submitted that out of total three containers, two containers bearing Nos. DRYU9982719 and NLLU4207620, were seized at Inland Container Depot, Bangalore, whereas, the third container bearing No. TGHU9180934 was intercepted at Chennai Port. In view of that the petitioner no where appears in the offence said to have been committed under Section 135 of the Customs Act. 4.2 It was submitted that what can be gathered from the complaint filed by Respondent No.1-DRI before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is that the present petitioner allegedly introduced himself, sometimes as Aakash and other times as Abbas Gulamhusen Hariyani, and that way he is the king-pin in the commission of the alleged offence, however, to substantiate the same, there is no evidence available either with the Customs Department or Respondent No.1-DRI. He would further submit that, except, the statement of Mr. Satish Kumar T., there is nothing on the record to implicate the petitioner. While referring to the summonses issued by Respondent No.1-DRI, which are produced as Annexure-F to this petition, it was submitted that the petitioner has already supplied the details asked for by Respondent No.1-DRI and despite that it is being insisted that the petitioner should appear before it in person and should give his statement and for the said purpose, summons after summons are being issued. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner apprehends that he will be arrested, under the pretext of recording his statement. 4.3 Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by and on behalf of Respondent No.1-DRI, which is produced at Page No.-184 to this petition, it was submitted that even the affidavit filed by Respondent No.1-DRI indicates that the petitioner is an accused in the offence in question and therefore, the petitioner has genuine apprehension that he will be arrested. 4.4 It was submitted that Respondent No.1-DRI has played a smart game with Mr. 4.4 It was submitted that Respondent No.1-DRI has played a smart game with Mr. Satish Kumar T., who was called for giving statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, but, was arrested subsequently and now, the very statement is being used to arraign the present petitioner as an accused in the alleged offence. It was submitted that Respondent No.1- DRI is using the same modus operandi against the present petitioner, by issuing repeated summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has a well founded belief that he will be arrested and hence, this petition is maintainable. 4.5 A reference was also made to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘The Senior Intelligence Officer Vs. Sanjay Agarwal’, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4821 of 2022, Dated: 04.07.2023, wherein, the apex Court is considering the following questions; “i. Whether a DRI Officer is a “proper officer” for the purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? ii. Whether the summons issued by the DRI Officer to the respondent under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be said to be without jurisdiction? iii. Whether the Customs/DRI Officers are police officers and, therefore, are required to register FIR in respect of an offence under Sections 133 to 135 respectively of the Customs Act, 1962? iv. Whether the provisions of Sections 154 to 157 respectively and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would apply in respect of the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, in view of Section 4(2) of the Code and whether in respect of the offences under Section 133 to 135 respectively of the Customs Act, 1962, the registration of the FIR is mandatory before the person concerned is arrested and produced before the Magistrate?” 4.5.1 It was submitted that, since, the aforesaid questions are pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration, the question would arise as to whether, Respondent No.1-DRI has an authority to issue summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the petitioner or not, and hence, the present petition is maintainable. 4.6 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others Vs. 4.6 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others Vs. State of Punjab’, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , it was submitted that the registration of an FIR is not a condition precedent for filing the application under Section 438 of the Code and even in absence of an FIR anticipatory bail can be granted, provided that the concerned accused demonstrates that there is a reasonable apprehension that he/she will be arrested for a cognizable offence. Referring to the observations made by the Apex Court in Paragraph-37 in the case of ‘Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others’ (Supra), it was submitted that the filing of or existence of an FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise the powers under Section 438 of the Code and if reasonable apprehension is shown by the concerned person, such powers can be exercised. 4.7 It was submitted that Respondent No.1-DRI is relentlessly behind the petitioner, as can be seen from the fact that another FIR has already been filed against the nephew of the present petitioner, alleging that he used DRI logo on his own social media platform to give an impression to other persons that he is working with DRI and that the present petitioner is also being sought to arraigned as an accused in the said FIR. It was, therefore, prayed that this petition be allowed. 4.8 It was, further, submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident of the State of Gujarat and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, as can be noticed from the fact that the petitioner has replied to all the summonses issued by Respondent No.1-DRI. It was submitted that the petitioner is also ready and willing to supply all the documents that may be needed by Respondent No.1-DRI and also to appear before them for giving his statement through video call or any other social media platform. It was submitted that this is not a case, where, custodial interrogation of the petitioner shall be necessary. It was submitted that the accused Satish Kumar T. has been granted default bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, as the investigation could not be completed within stipulated time period and that would indicate the hollowness in the case and investigation of Respondent No.1-DRI. It was submitted that the accused Satish Kumar T. has been granted default bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, as the investigation could not be completed within stipulated time period and that would indicate the hollowness in the case and investigation of Respondent No.1-DRI. He also referred to various other judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court to submit that an application under Section 438 of the Code is maintainable, if, the accused could show that there is a reasonable apprehension that he/she will be arrested in connection with a cognizable offence. 4.9 It was submitted that the maximum punishment, which may entail on successful conviction, is less than seven years and therefore, the guidelines issued in the case of ‘Arnesh Kumar v/s. State of Bihar’, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , shall apply in the case of the petitioner. 4.10 The above submissions are made to indicate that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that he will be arrested, under the pretext of calling him for recording his statement, by issuing Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act and therefore, it was prayed that this petition be allowed. 4.11 To buttress the submissions made herein above, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Barot, has also placed reliance on the following decisions; (1) ‘Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Director of Revenue Intelligence’, 2008 (101) DRJ 395 ; (2)‘Rajesh Ramjibhai Kundariya Vs. State of Gujarat’, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 10144; (3)‘Parth Narendrabhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Others’, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 537; (4)‘Chaman Kumar Shah Vs. Union of India and two Others’, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5031 of 2020, Allahabad High Court; (5)‘Anand Navalchand Pugliya Vs. Union of India Through Intelligence Officer Lko.’, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1172 of 2021, Allahabad High Court; (6)’Sr. Intelligence Officer Vs. Sanjay Agarwal’, Criminal Petition No. 5863 of 2022, Dated: 29.07.2022, High Court of Telengana; (7)‘Khalid Anwar @ Anwar Khalid V. CBI through Branch Hear New Delhi’, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S. 438 CR.P.C. No. 1981 of 2023, Allahabad High Court; 5. Per contra, learned Advocate, Ms. Sancheti, appearing for Respondent No.1-DRI referred to the order in Criminal Misc. Sanjay Agarwal’, Criminal Petition No. 5863 of 2022, Dated: 29.07.2022, High Court of Telengana; (7)‘Khalid Anwar @ Anwar Khalid V. CBI through Branch Hear New Delhi’, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S. 438 CR.P.C. No. 1981 of 2023, Allahabad High Court; 5. Per contra, learned Advocate, Ms. Sancheti, appearing for Respondent No.1-DRI referred to the order in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5176 of 2020, Dated: 25.06.2021, and submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others’, reported in 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 1, has observed that an application for anticipatory bail, against the summons issued under Section 108 of the Custom Act, is not maintainable, as the concerned person, by way of such summons, is just called for recording his statement and since, the summons is issued for this limited purpose, the concerned person is bound to comply with the same. Thereby, it was submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. 5.1 Taking this Court through the facts of the present case, it was submitted that the petitioner is the centripetal person or the central figure in the entire case, as the petitioner introduced himself as Aakash, who imported the areca/beetle nuts, by using the credentials, i.e. IEC. GST. Etc., of M.S.K. Engineering Work and thereby, false documents were also created. It was submitted that three containers carrying areca/beetle nuts were imported and out of them two were sent to Bangalore, whereas, the remaining one was sent to Chennai with the help of co-accused Satish Kumar T.. However, later on, all the three containers came to be seized. It was submitted that the petitioner sometimes, introduced himself as Aakash, who, according to the petitioner, is a native of State of Gujarat, but, residing at Delhi, and imported areca nuts, whereas, on several other occasions, he introduced himself as Abbas Gulamhusen Hariyani, and made inquires about the consignment of areca/beetle nuts for purchasing the same. It was submitted that the above facts are revealed from the statement of the co-accused, Satish Kumar T., which is recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and therefore, the same cannot be brushed aside by simply stating that it is the statement made by a co-accused and recorded by the IO. It was submitted that the above facts are revealed from the statement of the co-accused, Satish Kumar T., which is recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and therefore, the same cannot be brushed aside by simply stating that it is the statement made by a co-accused and recorded by the IO. 5.2 It was submitted that the conundrum, as to whether, the present petitioner is Aakash or he is actually Abbas Gulamhusen Hariyani is required to be solved. It is to be unearthed that who is impersonating, whether Aakash or Abbas Gulamhusen Hariyani. Further, there are two firms have been registered by the petitioner, namely Adarsh Trading and Akash Trading, and he has obtained two different GST numbers for them, however, their address is shown to be the one and the same. It is, therefore, submitted that with a view to clear the aforesaid conundrum, when the petitioner is repeatedly being called, by issuing summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, by Respondent No.1-DRI, the petitioner is bound to comply with the same. However, the petitioner has been continuously avoiding and averting the same, though, as many as five summonses have been issued to him. It was, further, submitted that as the officers of Respondent No.1-DRI are acting within their statutory powers, the petitioner has to comply with the same and cooperate in the investigation. 5.2.1 It was submitted that the officers of Respondent No.1-DRI are empowered to summon a person and ask him to give his statement and if required, to supply the necessary evidence or documents. 5.3 Distinguishing the judgment of ‘Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others’ (Supra), it was submitted that issuance of Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the petitioner, by no means, can be treated as a reasonable belief/apprehension that the petitioner shall be arrested and therefore, it was submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others’ (Supra) shall not apply to the facts of the case on hand. 5.4 It was submitted that looking to the gravity of the offence, whereby, areca/beetle nuts weighing 75.098 Mts, having market value of Rs.6,53,00,000/- have been imported and customs duty towards the same is evaded, the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 5.4 It was submitted that looking to the gravity of the offence, whereby, areca/beetle nuts weighing 75.098 Mts, having market value of Rs.6,53,00,000/- have been imported and customs duty towards the same is evaded, the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 5.5 It was submitted that, as per the statement given by the co-accused, Mr. Satish Kumar T., present petitioner is the kingpin, who sometimes used name and introduced himself, as Aakash, and sometimes he introduced himself, as Abbas Gulamhusen Hariyani and thereby, he has played key role in the commission of the alleged offence. It was submitted that Respondent No.1-DRI is required to unravel the truth about the alleged dual identity of the present petitioner and therefore, it was submitted that the personal presence of the petitioner is necessary. Thus, petitioner cannot be given anticipatory bail. 5.6 Learned Advocate, Ms. Sancheti, further, submitted, after referring to Section 104 of the Customs Act, that the law has provided for the procedure to be followed by the concerned officer, if, he need to arrest a person, as the Customs Act is a complete Code in itself. It was submitted that there is proper check provided under the Customs Act. 5.7 By making the submissions, as noted herein above, it was prayed that this petition be dismissed. 6. Learned APP, Mr. Patel, appearing for the Respondent- State adopted the arguments made by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1-DRI and prayed that this petition be dismissed. 7. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Barot, in rejoinder, submitted that the as the present petitioner is being portrayed as the king-pin or the central figure in the commission of the alleged offence, his arrest is eminent and therefore, this petition is maintainable and he has valid apprehension that the statement given by the co-accused, Mr. Satish Kumar T., shall be made the basis for his arrest. It was reiterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and the fact that the petitioner has answered all the five summonses issued to him, shows bona fide on the part of the petitioner. He also tried to distinguish the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. It was reiterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and the fact that the petitioner has answered all the five summonses issued to him, shows bona fide on the part of the petitioner. He also tried to distinguish the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5176 of 2020, Dated: 25.06.2021, and submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, committed an error by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others’ (Supra). It was submitted that ‘Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others’ (Supra), the Apex Court had not approved the order of the High Court that there shall be no arrest without giving ten days’ prior notice to the concerned accused person, as no such orders can be passed, either while exercising the powers under Section 438 of the Code or under any other law for the time being in force and therefore, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that such an order was an absolute erroneous order, which was passed after the anticipatory bail application of the concerned accused person was already rejected. It was, therefore, again prayed that this petition be allowed. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, at the outset, it can be stated that, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others’ (Supra), which was subsequently followed in the case of ‘Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another’, reported in AIR 2020 SC 831 , filing of an FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise the powers/jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code. However, the concerned accused has to show/demonstrate that he has a reasonable apprehension or belief that he may be arrested in connection with a cognizable offence. The Apex Court has further observed that the use of the expression, ‘Reason to Believe’ in Section 438(1) of the Code shows that the belief, that the applicant may be so arrested, must be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by, on the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant’s apprehension that he may be arrested, is genuine. Such a belief must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively, because it is then alone that the Court can determine, whether, the applicant has a reason to believe that he/she may be so arrested. Specific events and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the Court to judge the reasonableness of his belief. It is, further, held that a blanket order, i.e. an order which serves as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of alleged unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely, regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be had, should not generally be passed, as such a blanket order is bound to cause serious interference with the functions of the police. 8.1 According to the present petitioner, he apprehends that he will be arrested by calling him under the pretext of giving statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. In that regard, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of ‘Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others’ (Supra), wherein, after referring to the powers under Section 104 of the Customs Act, it is held as under at Paragraphs- 36 to 40 thereof ; “Safeguards against abuse of power 36. From the above discussion, it is amply clear that power to arrest a person by a Custom Officer is statutory in character and cannot be interfered with. Such power of arrest can be exercised only in those cases where the Custom Officer has `reason to believe' that a person has been guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 132, 133, 135, 135A or 136 of the Act. Thus, the power must be exercised on objective facts of commission of an offence enumerated and the custom officer has reason to believe that a person sought to be arrested has been guilty of commission of such offence. The power to arrest thus is circumscribed by objective considerations and cannot be exercised on whims, caprice or fancy of the officer. 37. The section also obliges the Custom Officer to inform the person arrested of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be. The law requires such person to be produced before a Magistrate `without unnecessary delay'. 38. The power to arrest thus is circumscribed by objective considerations and cannot be exercised on whims, caprice or fancy of the officer. 37. The section also obliges the Custom Officer to inform the person arrested of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be. The law requires such person to be produced before a Magistrate `without unnecessary delay'. 38. The law thus, on the one hand, allows a Custom Officer to exercise power to arrest a person who has committed certain offences, and on the other hand, takes due care to ensure individual freedom and liberty by laying down norms and providing safeguards so that the power of arrest is not abused or misused by the authorities. It is keeping in view these considerations that we have to decide correctness or otherwise of the directions issued by a single Judge of the High Court. `Blanket' order of bail may amount to or result in an invitation to commit an offence or a passport to carry on criminal activities or to afford a shield against any and all types of illegal operations, which, in our judgment, can never be allowed in a society governed by Rule of Law. Statements under Section 108, Customs Act : Evidentiary value 39. As already noted in the earlier part of the judgment, Sections 107-09 confer power on Custom Officers to examine persons, to summon them to give evidence and to produce documents. Section 108 which is a material provision, reads thus; “Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.- (1) Any gazetted officer of customs duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf, shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under this Act. (2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under control of the person summoned. (2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under control of the person summoned. (3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorized agent as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject, respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required; Provided that the exemption under Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall be applicable to any requisition for attendance under this section. (4) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) This section does not contemplate magisterial intervention. The power is exercised by a Gazetted Officer of the Department. It obliges the person summoned to state truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined. He is not absolved from speaking truth on the ground that such statement is admissible in evidence and could be used against him. The provision thus enables the officer to elicit truth from the person examined. The underlying object of Section 108 is to ensure that the officer questioning the person gets all the truth concerning the incident. 40. As held by Constitution Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 461 , a person called upon to make a statement before the Custom Authorities cannot be said to be an accused of an offence. It is, therefore, clear that if a person is called upon to make a statement under Section 108 of the Act and summon is issued for the said purpose, he is bound to comply with such direction. This view has been reiterated in several cases thereafter.” 8.2 An useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Veera Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra’, reported in 1976(2) SCC 302 . Relevant Paragraphs 5 to 9 thereof, read as under; “5. This view has been reiterated in several cases thereafter.” 8.2 An useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Veera Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra’, reported in 1976(2) SCC 302 . Relevant Paragraphs 5 to 9 thereof, read as under; “5. Clause (3) of Article 20 provides: "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." 6. From an analysis of this clause, it is apparent that in order to claim the benefit of the guarantee against testimonial compulsion embodied in this clause, it must be shown, firstly, that the person who made the statement was "accused of any offence" secondly, that he made this statement under compulsion. The phrase "accused of any offence" has been the subject of several decisions of this Court so that by now it is well settled that only a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in his prosecution, would fall within its ambit. 7. In R.C. Mehta v. State of West Bengal, this point came up for consideration in the context of a statement recorded by an officer of Customs in an enquiry under s. 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. One of the contentions raised was, that a person against whom such an enquiry is made is a `person accused of an offence', and on that account, he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself and the statement obtained or evidence collected under the aforesaid provision by the officer of Customs is inadmissible. This contention was repelled. Shah J., speaking for the Court, made these apposite observations: "Under s. 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, a Customs officer has power in an enquiry in connection with the smuggling of goods to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary, to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing, and by cl. (3) the person so summoned is bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined or makes statements and to produce such documents and other things as may be required. The expression "any person" includes a person who is suspected or believed to be concerned in the smuggling of goods. (3) the person so summoned is bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined or makes statements and to produce such documents and other things as may be required. The expression "any person" includes a person who is suspected or believed to be concerned in the smuggling of goods. But a person arrested by a Customs officer because he is found in possession of smuggled goods or on suspicion that he is concerned in smuggling is not when called upon by the Customs officer to make a statement or to produce a document or thing, a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. The steps taken by the Customs officer are for the purpose of holding an enquiry under the Sea Customs Act and for adjudging confiscation of goods dutiable or prohibited and imposing penalties. The Customs officer does not at that stage accuse the person suspected of infringing the provisions of the Sea Customs Act with the commission of any offence. His primary duty is to prevent smuggling and to recover duties of customs when collecting evidence in respect of smuggling against a person suspected of infringing the provisions of the Sea Customs Act he is not accusing the person of any offence punishable at a trial before a magistrate". 8. After a survey of case law, the Court pointed out the circumstances, the existence of which is ordinarily necessary to clothe a person with the character of a "person accused of an offence": "Normally a person stands in the character of an accused when a First Information Report is lodged. against him in respect of an offence before an officer competent to investigate it, or when a complaint is made relating to the commission of an offence before a Magistrate competent to try or send to another Magistrate for trial the offence. Where a Customs officer arrests a person and informs that person of the grounds of his arrest (which he is bound to do under Art. 221) of the Constitution for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the infringement of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act which he has reason to believe has taken place, there is no formal accusation of an offence. In the case of an offence by infringement of the Sea Customs Act and punishable at the trial before a Magistrate, there is an accusation when a complaint is lodged by an officer competent in that behalf before the Magistrate". 9. The above-quoted observations are a complete answer to the contention of the appellant. In the light of these principles, it is clear that when the statement of the appellant was recorded by the Customs officer under s. 108, the appellant was not a person "accused of any offence" under the Customs Act, 1962. An accusation which would stamp him with the character of such a person was, levelled only when the complaint was filed against him, by the Assistant Collector of Customs complaining of the commission of offences under s. 135(a) and s. 135(6) of the Customs Act.” 8.3 In the case of ‘Naresh J. Sukhwani Vs. Union of India’, reported in 1996 (62) ECR 366 (SC), it is observed that a statement made before the Customs Official is not a statement, made before a police officer under Section 161 of the Code, and that a statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a material piece of evidence and the same can be used as a substantive evidence connecting one. 8.4 What transpires from the record is that the petitioner has been directed to remain present to give his statement and to produce certain documents in the inquiry, being conducted by Respondent No.1-DRI. The officer of Respondent No.1-DRI has exercised the powers under Section 108 of the Customs Act and therefore, the petitioner is bound to comply with the same and he cannot avoid the same by describing it as a reasonable apprehension or a well-founded belief that he will be arrested. 8.5 Insofar as, the powers of arrest under the Customs Act is concerned, it provides in Section 104 as under; “104. [Power to arrest. 8.5 Insofar as, the powers of arrest under the Customs Act is concerned, it provides in Section 104 as under; “104. [Power to arrest. [Substituted by Act 29 of 2006, Section 24, for sub-Section (1) (w.e.f. 13.7.2006).] (1) If an officer of Customs empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the Commissioner of Customs has reason to believe that any person in India or within the Indian customs waters has committed an offence punishable under section 132 or section 133 or section 135 or section 135-A or section 136, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.] (2) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, without un-necessary delay, be taken to a magistrate. (3) Where an officer of customs has arrested any person under sub-section (1), he shall, for the purpose of releasing such person on bail or otherwise, have the same powers and be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police-station has and is subject to under the Code of [Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)] [Now see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).]. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of [Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)] [Now see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).], an offence under this Act shall not be cognizable.” 8.5.1 Thus, Section 104(1) of the Customs Act provides that, if, a customs officer has a reason to believe that, any person in India or within the Indian customs waters has committed an offence punishable under section 132 or section 133 or section 135 or section 135-A or section 136, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be possible, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. Section 104(2) provides that such a person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, without unnecessary delay, be produced before a magistrate. Section 104(3) provides that a Customs Officer shall, for the purpose of releasing such arrested person on bail or otherwise, have the same powers and be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police-station has and is subject to under the Code. 8.6 In the case of ‘Adri Dharan Das Vs. Section 104(3) provides that a Customs Officer shall, for the purpose of releasing such arrested person on bail or otherwise, have the same powers and be subject to the same provisions as the officer-in-charge of a police-station has and is subject to under the Code. 8.6 In the case of ‘Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal’, 2005 (4) SCC 303 , the Apex Court has observed that an order under Section 438 is a device to secure an individual's ‘liberty'. it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely. It is further observed as under; “Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who is entitled to plead, innocence, since he is not on the date of application for exercise of power under Section 438 of the Code convicted for the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. The applicant must show that he has 'reason to believe' that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Use of the expression 'reason to believe' that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Use of the expression 'reason to believe' shows that the applicant may be arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere "fear" is not 'belief' for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that h has some sort of vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be arrested. Grounds on which the belief on the applicant is based that he may be arrested in non-bailable offence must be capable of being examined. If an application is made to the High Court or the Court of Session, it is for the Court concerned to decide whether a case has been made out of for granting the relief sought. The provisions cannot be invoked after arrest of the accused. A blanket order should not be generally passed. It flows from the very language of the section which requires the applicant to show that he has reason to believe that he may be arrested. The provisions cannot be invoked after arrest of the accused. A blanket order should not be generally passed. It flows from the very language of the section which requires the applicant to show that he has reason to believe that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. Normally a direction should not issue to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever". Such 'blanket order' should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. An order under Section 438 is a device is secure the individual's liberty' it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely. On the facts of the case, considered in the background of legal position set out above, this does not prima facie appear to be a case where any order in terms of Section 438 of the Code can be passed.” 8.7 The coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 25.06.2021, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5176 of 2020, has observed as under at Paragraph-8 thereof; “[8] Thus, as per the law promulgated by the Apex Court the Summons under Section 108 of the Custom Act is only issued for recording the evidence and the High Court cannot direct the respondent authorities not to arrest such accused, as the anticipatory application would be premature at this stage. Even the direction issued by the High Court not to arrest such accused for limited period would be illegal and against the law.” 8.8 In view of the above discussion, the present petitioner fails to show or display any well-founded reason to believe/apprehend that he will be arrested. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, no blanket orders can be passed to the effect that ‘Not to Arrest’ the petitioner. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, no blanket orders can be passed to the effect that ‘Not to Arrest’ the petitioner. In view of the fact that Respondent No.1-DRI has powers to call the petitioner, by issuing summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the petitioner is bound to comply with the same and therefore, none of the decisions/authorities relied on by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in given background of facts shall not help the petitioner’s case. 8.9 There are several vexed questions, viz. Whether, the present petitioner is Aakash or Abbas Gulamhusen Hariyani and as to whether, Aakash is using the identity of the petitioner or the petitioner is using the name of Aakash, and the answers to the same are needed to be found out by the prosecuting agency and therefore also, the petitioner has to comply with the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 9. Resultantly, this petition fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Needless to say observations made herein above are limited to the decision of this petition only. Rule is discharged.