Competence of Judge in Entertaining Bail Applications under Customs Act Upheld, Prior Notice Requirement Struck Down

The court held that the Addl. Sessions Judge had the competence to entertain anticipatory bail applications under the Customs Act, 1962, regardless of administrative instructions. However, the direction for prior notice before arrest was deemed unjustified based on Supreme Court precedents, leading to the setting aside of the Addl. Sessions Judge's order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The competency of the court to entertain anticipatory bail applications under the Customs Act, 1962 and the validity of directing service of prior notice before arrest in case of an FIR being registered.

Competency of the court:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge directing service of prior notice on the respondent, arguing that the court at Tis Hazari was not competent to entertain anticipatory bail applications under the Customs Act, 1962. However, it was found that there were no administrative instructions limiting such applications to the courts at Patiala House. Therefore, the Addl. Sessions Judge's order could not be interfered with on the ground of lack of competency.

Validity of prior notice before arrest:
The petitioner also contended that directing service of 7 days' prior notice before arrest, as done by the Addl. Sessions Judge, was not justified. Referring to Supreme Court decisions in Crl. Appeal No. 555/2000 and Crl. Appeal No. 1399/2003, it was highlighted that such a condition was disapproved. The Supreme Court had set aside similar orders in the past, stating that imposing a prior notice condition after refusal of anticipatory bail was not justified. Consequently, the Addl. Sessions Judge's order directing prior notice before arrest was set aside, in line with the Supreme Court's stance on the matter.

---