Excise duty evasion and custodial interrogation support denial of anticipatory bail in clandestine removal probe

In a prosecution for alleged excise duty evasion and clandestine removal of goods, the Court treated the raid material, seized voluminous records, and the applicant's lack of cooperation as supporting custodial interrogation. It found that the investigation rested on independent material, not merely on complaints made by the applicant against excise officers, and accepted that only part of the evasion had initially been detected. The Court also noted the statutory position that, although offences under the Act were ordinarily non-cognizable, sanction could issue where the competent authority was satisfied that material existed to prosecute and arrest. Anticipatory bail was therefore not granted at the first instance, and custodial interrogation was permitted with limited interim protection thereafter.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution concerning alleged evasion of excise duty and clandestine removal of goods, and whether custodial interrogation was justified.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed substantial evasion of excise duty and the material gathered in the raid indicated that only part of the evasion had been detected initially. The Court found that the investigation was based on independent material and not merely on the complaints made by the applicant against excise officers. It also held that, in view of the nature of the allegations, the seized voluminous records, and the applicant's lack of cooperation, custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court further accepted the statutory position that, although offences under the Act were ordinarily non-cognizable, sanction could be granted where the competent authority was satisfied that material existed to prosecute and arrest the accused.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not granted in the first instance, and custodial interrogation was permitted with limited interim protection thereafter.

---